[Archived] FIFPRO to challenge the transfer system

[M-K]

Before Bosman clubs could demand a fee for players who were out of contract, and when that was abolished people said it would be the end for smaller clubs.

If they do get rid of transfer fees - and they will because it's fundamentally unfair - then it just means you'll have a different sort of player-club relationship. There will be no point signing anyone but the very best to long term contracts, so clubs wouldn't be stuck with crocks. There will be more free agents. It might actually benefit a club like Rovers.

[Stuart]

Before Bosman clubs could demand a fee for players who were out of contract, and when that was abolished people said it would be the end for smaller clubs.

If they do get rid of transfer fees - and they will because it's fundamentally unfair - then it just means you'll have a different sort of player-club relationship. There will be no point signing anyone but the very best to long term contracts, so clubs wouldn't be stuck with crocks. There will be more free agents. It might actually benefit a club like Rovers.

How does a short contract benefit the player? If he gets injured he doesn't get as much money.

Short careers need lucrative contracts. Without transfer fees there is no need for clubs to protect their investment so why would they offer long contracts, and the security that gives the player.

Bosman, EPPP, and now this? Someone really wants to rid the world of small football clubs, and give all that money to agents.

Why would clubs bother with academies? The next Phil Jones will simply walk away to the next United, with the club that developed that player getting nothing in return.

This doesn't seem to work for the players or the clubs. Are we going to see players become full time employees, and when they are left out of the first team put a claim in for constructive dismissal?

[BlueMonday]

Another nail in footballs coffin. The greed of footballers will kill the game, of that there's no doubt

[thenodrog]

Does Gordon work for FIFPRO or is he one of their lawyers?

On the plus side, turkey's have just voted for Christmas, or have the just killed the golden goose?

Wages will have to come down now, surely?

It was a bit if a throwaway comment, Maj.

Gordon has been talking for years about the death of transfer fees.

I'm tempted to refer to a blind man on a galloping horse but tbh it's just employing lateral thinking allied to logic. Anybody with a level head should be able to do that.

Now... Lancs County... where were we?

[bob fleming]

Another nail in footballs coffin. The greed of footballers will kill the game, of that there's no doubt

To an extent. However, as others have said, it was the forming of the Premier League that killed the game. Or more to the point, somewhat coincidentally, the advent of Sky. What is it now? £64m a season just for being in the PL? It was approx £45m 2 seasons ago. And where does this extra money go? Straight to the players. That's one hell of a PS4.

The FA sold the majority of clubs in England down the river when they agreed to the breakaway. They do so time and time again. They don't care about any of the clubs apart from the elite. We know only too well.

Not in the games best interests I think you'll find to punish certain clubs for what has taken place during the last 3 years. Certain managers left quite suddenly and that was that. Let's move on.

So abolish transfer fees, bring in FFP. Just ensure that the status quo is preserved. To hell with the England team and bring on the next batch of Sinclairs and Zahas, the big clubs will pay them the most money - if only to keep them away from the competition and sit them on the bench.

The difference should this come in will be that it'll be nothing for Swansea and Palace and it'll all go to Scott and Wilf instead. What a mess. Hardly matters to the big clubs though does it?

(And yes I am aware of the irony of a Rovers fan moaning about the PL (longsiders))

I'm tempted to refer to a blind man on a galloping horse but tbh it's just employing lateral thinking allied to logic. Anybody with a level head should be able to do that.Now... Lancs County... where were we?

I think you were banging on about it every couple of weeks or so theno and no one else is interested on this supposed Blackburn Rovers Football Club Supporters forum.

[thenodrog]

I think you were banging on about it every couple of weeks or so theno and no one else is interested on this supposed Blackburn Rovers Football Club Supporters forum.

Yet.

[M-K]

How does a short contract benefit the player? If he gets injured he doesn't get as much money. ...

Why would clubs bother with academies? The next Phil Jones will simply walk away to the next United, with the club that developed that player getting nothing in return.

A short contract could benefit the player if it means he's not tied to a club when he could be making more money elsewhere. Why should his employer be entitled to an arbitrarily large fee when his contract is worth far less than that amount? It doesn't work that way in other businesses.

Also, short contracts could benefit the club if a player is injury prone or not good enough - his terms could be renegotiated or he could be released.

As for transfer fees lost by small clubs, most of them never develop a Phil Jones anyway. Or if they do, the player is scouted by the big clubs and tempted away to their academies long before he's old enough to sign a contract. £17m home-grown talents are pretty rare.

[Majiball]

As for transfer fees lost by small clubs, most of them never develop a Phil Jones anyway. Or if they do, the player is scouted by the big clubs and tempted away to their academies long before he's old enough to sign a contract. £17m home-grown talents are pretty rare.

But that's relative to the club concerned. Accy are celebrating getting the deal for mahoney (they need the cash), that would be gone. Crewe are a club that instantly springs to mind when thinking about this, they fund their club through sales. Most small clubs are ecstatic when they can sell a player for above a million, it gives them a great boost as money for a lot of clubs is hard to come by.

Some league one clubs total wage bills are less than we pay Jordan Rhodes.

[Stuart]

A short contract could benefit the player if it means he's not tied to a club when he could be making more money elsewhere. Why should his employer be entitled to an arbitrarily large fee when his contract is worth far less than that amount? It doesn't work that way in other businesses.

Players leave all the time. If they stamp their feet enough a move happens, regardless of contract length.

I really hope this move backfires and players end up on much less money. But somehow they won't.

They are not normal workers as they have a much shorter useful shelf-life, hence the 'justification' for large salaries.

In terms of arbitrarily large salaries, why shouldn't a selling club hold out for what the feel the player is worth rather than how much a buying club offers (who have probably already unsettled the player in the first place. This is the reason agents negotiate release clauses and partly why wages are so high as a result.

As for "it doesn't work in any other business", in what other business can an "employee" earn £1m per month? The elite footballers don't live in the real world. Although it makes you wonder why we have started to see players pictured in Pound Shops just recently. Empathy with the common man?

Whilst this may be done for the good of lower league players - although personally I think they have the most to lose in terms if the security a contract brings - it's the elite players, and their agents of course, who believe they should be paid even more - to kick a bit of leather around a park. Their greed never ceases to amaze. It's time clubs took a stand and agreed to reduce wages offered for new contracts. Of course some clever lawyer would argue that they were acting as an illegal cartel. That and the big club (right across Europe would simply keep paying high wages).

Football needs to die and be reborn.

[T.J.Newton]

Only way something like this could work without destroying professional football completely would be to put rules in place so that players can only play for 1or 2 clubs(worldwide!) in an 18 month period, with the only expecption being under 20s being allowed to go out on loan to get experience and loaning players between clubs in the same league should also be stopped.

[M-K]

In terms of arbitrarily large salaries, why shouldn't a selling club hold out for what the feel the player is worth rather than how much a buying club offers (who have probably already unsettled the player in the first place.

As for "it doesn't work in any other business", in what other business can an "employee" earn £1m per month?

Transfer fees, not salaries. If Spurs thought Gareth Bale was worth £86m, they should have given him an £86m contract. They weren't paying him anything like that, but for some reason the fact that he'd signed a contract with them for a much smaller amount means they were entitled to demand £86m from his new employers.

Why should Spurs get so much for him? He cost them £6m and gave them years of good service. If Bale was worth that much, surely he should be the one getting that money, or at least the lion's share of it.

The amount they earn isn't the issue here, although there are places like financial institutions and American sports where people can earn as much. It may be a crazy amount just for being good a football, but until people stop paying to watch, that won't change.

The point is that the employer charges a fee that's way in excess of what the employee is paid, just to permit him to move to a new company. I changed jobs a couple of years ago, and my new employer didn't have to pay my old one 20x my salary for the privilege of signing me. That wouldn't be legal - they don't own me or have any say over where I go. Should be the same with sports players, really.

[Majiball]

is it sport or is it business?

[Stuart]

Transfer fees, not salaries. If Spurs thought Gareth Bale was worth £86m, they should have given him an £86m contract. They weren't paying him anything like that, but for some reason the fact that he'd signed a contract with them for a much smaller amount means they were entitled to demand £86m from his new employers.

Why should Spurs get so much for him? He cost them £6m and gave them years of good service. If Bale was worth that much, surely he should be the one getting that money, or at least the lion's share of it.

The amount they earn isn't the issue here, although there are places like financial institutions and American sports where people can earn as much. It may be a crazy amount just for being good a football, but until people stop paying to watch, that won't change.

The point is that the employer charges a fee that's way in excess of what the employee is paid, just to permit him to move to a new company. I changed jobs a couple of years ago, and my new employer didn't have to pay my old one 20x my salary for the privilege of signing me. That wouldn't be legal - they don't own me or have any say over where I go. Should be the same with sports players, really.

But it's not the club that sets the value, it's the market and the buyer. If Madrid feel he is worth £86m (and they could recover that through prize money or marketing as a result of buying him) then that's what they will pay.

So you think that the player deserves that money in his contract? How? If the player was paying the club to play for them (investing in himself) then yes, he should get the money but the club pays him.

You are talking about 2 different contracts - one is a contract of sale between two clubs, the other is a playing contract between player and club. If Bale thinks he should get paid £86m over 5 years - or however long he was at Spurs - then he should have instructed his agent to request that amount and not signed for any less. Or maybe he could have taken out a loan and paid Southampton his transfer fee to go to Spurs in the first place (a self-funded third party arrangement which opens a whole other can of worms)? The club took the risk in buying him (investing in him) and should therefore make the lion's share of the next sale. The player agrees terms with his new club.

Without transfer fees, how are Accrington Stanley et al going to pay the bills? How are they a going concern?

No, for me, this is a step too far. Unless FIFPRO agree to find the money to pay off club debts before it starts, and even then I'm not convinced.

If any contractor breaches their contract then compensation is due. The size of transfer fees are simply the amounts the market has pushed that compensation up to, depending on the value placed on that player.

Players at the top end of the scale are on a bloody good screw.

[M-K]

But it's not the club that sets the value, it's the market and the buyer. If Madrid feel he is worth £86m (and they could recover that through prize money or marketing as a result of buying him) then that's what they will pay.

You are talking about 2 different contracts - one is a contract of sale between two clubs, the other is a playing contract between player and club.

That's not what this is about. Like it or not, European law says that a person is free to seek employment anywhere he wants. Football clubs are preventing people from doing that by demanding transfer fees for their employees.

Up until Bosman, clubs used to get a cut for out-of-contract employees. Outlawing that didn't drive many of them bankrupt. Currently I think players are already allowed to buy out their contracts after two or three years, depending on their age. This is just another step in that direction.

Unless football is treated as a special case, outside of normal employment laws, it's definitely going to happen sooner or later.

[yoda]

But it's not the club that sets the value, it's the market and the buyer. If Madrid feel he is worth £86m (and they could recover that through prize money or marketing as a result of buying him) then that's what they will pay.

So you think that the player deserves that money in his contract? How? If the player was paying the club to play for them (investing in himself) then yes, he should get the money but the club pays him.

You are talking about 2 different contracts - one is a contract of sale between two clubs, the other is a playing contract between player and club. If Bale thinks he should get paid £86m over 5 years - or however long he was at Spurs - then he should have instructed his agent to request that amount and not signed for any less. Or maybe he could have taken out a loan and paid Southampton his transfer fee to go to Spurs in the first place (a self-funded third party arrangement which opens a whole other can of worms)? The club took the risk in buying him (investing in him) and should therefore make the lion's share of the next sale. The player agrees terms with his new club.

Without transfer fees, how are Accrington Stanley et al going to pay the bills? How are they a going concern?

No, for me, this is a step too far. Unless FIFPRO agree to find the money to pay off club debts before it starts, and even then I'm not convinced.

If any contractor breaches their contract then compensation is due. The size of transfer fees are simply the amounts the market has pushed that compensation up to, depending on the value placed on that player.

Players at the top end of the scale are on a bloody good screw.

The market and the buyer are the clubs, but being played like a fiddle by agents

[thenodrog]

Transfer fees, not salaries. If Spurs thought Gareth Bale was worth £86m, they should have given him an £86m contract. They weren't paying him anything like that, but for some reason the fact that he'd signed a contract with them for a much smaller amount means they were entitled to demand £86m from his new employers.

Why should Spurs get so much for him? He cost them £6m and gave them years of good service. If Bale was worth that much, surely he should be the one getting that money, or at least the lion's share of it.

The amount they earn isn't the issue here, although there are places like financial institutions and American sports where people can earn as much. It may be a crazy amount just for being good a football, but until people stop paying to watch, that won't change.

The point is that the employer charges a fee that's way in excess of what the employee is paid, just to permit him to move to a new company. I changed jobs a couple of years ago, and my new employer didn't have to pay my old one 20x my salary for the privilege of signing me. That wouldn't be legal - they don't own me or have any say over where I go. Should be the same with sports players, really.

Problem is that Gareth Bale signed a contract to play for Spurs for a fixed term. He was happy enough to do that so he has to honour it. If he didn't want such a long contract then he shouldn't have signed. However if he had a career threatening injury or a dramatic loss of form he would have thrown away a lot of security. Alternatively he might even have inserted a clause that if any other club came in with a bid over a certain amount that he could leave with a healthy %age hence why Spurs stuck out for so much. No one will have access to these details but footballers contracts are negotiable and open to all manner of stipulations.

[yoda's brother]

Transfer fees, not salaries. If Spurs thought Gareth Bale was worth £86m, they should have given him an £86m contract. They weren't paying him anything like that, but for some reason the fact that he'd signed a contract with them for a much smaller amount means they were entitled to demand £86m from his new employers.

Why should Spurs get so much for him? He cost them £6m and gave them years of good service. If Bale was worth that much, surely he should be the one getting that money, or at least the lion's share of it.

The amount they earn isn't the issue here, although there are places like financial institutions and American sports where people can earn as much. It may be a crazy amount just for being good a football, but until people stop paying to watch, that won't change.

The point is that the employer charges a fee that's way in excess of what the employee is paid, just to permit him to move to a new company. I changed jobs a couple of years ago, and my new employer didn't have to pay my old one 20x my salary for the privilege of signing me. That wouldn't be legal - they don't own me or have any say over where I go. Should be the same with sports players, really.

what a load of rubbish

[M-K]

what a load of rubbish

well that's put me in my place.

[bluebruce]

These whiny footballers should go into a profession, then, where they don't have to endure the awful, sinful practice of having to let clubs recoup some of the disgusting amounts they pay them. Most of them would probably qualify as manual labourers and no more. See if they're happier with that little bit of extra freedom (and let's be honest here, they get almost any move they want anyway by stamping their feet like ungrateful children), in exchange for less than 1% of the wage. Oh the woeful plight of the modern footballer.

By the way. I just read that if Gareth Bale dropped a £2 coin, it literally wouldn't be worth his time picking it up, because he would earn more in the three seconds it took to pick it up. I do wish he had been able to get that £86 million on top of the wages he currently earns, poor soul. That would be much fairer compensation for kicking a ball around a few hours a week.

[Stuart]

Spot on, Bruce.

[yoda]

These whiny footballers should go into a profession, then, where they don't have to endure the awful, sinful practice of having to let clubs recoup some of the disgusting amounts they pay them. Most of them would probably qualify as manual labourers and no more. See if they're happier with that little bit of extra freedom (and let's be honest here, they get almost any move they want anyway by stamping their feet like ungrateful children), in exchange for less than 1% of the wage. Oh the woeful plight of the modern footballer.

By the way. I just read that if Gareth Bale dropped a £2 coin, it literally wouldn't be worth his time picking it up, because he would earn more in the three seconds it took to pick it up. I do wish he had been able to get that £86 million on top of the wages he currently earns, poor soul. That would be much fairer compensation for kicking a ball around a few hours a week.

Spot on, Bruce.

While I agree with your sentiments,

the truth is, its the owners/directors of football clubs that agree to pay the scrotes these vast sums of money after being smurfed by agents

[Stuart]

While I agree with your sentiments,

the truth is, its the owners/directors of football clubs that agree to pay the scrotes these vast sums of money after being smurfed by agents

The clubs can say 'no'.

Unless 'smurfed' means blackmailed.

[yoda]

The clubs can say 'no'.

Unless 'smurfed' means blackmailed.

they don't say no though, they pay up

[RevidgeBlue]

When I first read this article I thought it was April 1st come early. So unless I'm reading it wrong this guy wants players to have the ability to walk out on their contracts when they feel like it but if they don't feel like it Clubs have to honour the contracts to the bitter death with no reciprocal rights? What a joke, never going to happen, hopefully.

Players getting a long term contract on huge money isn't just a restriction on their freedom of movement, it's very much a 2 way benefit. They're guaranteed an obscene level of income for a specifed period and if their form tails off completely the Clubs still have to pay them, or if they're injured either short term or on a career threatning basis the Clubs have to pay them in the meantime and provide them wirh the finest medical care for rehabilitation. On the flip side the Club get a fee if another Club wants the player mid term and the player decides to move. I think it's a perfectly fair balance if not weighted far too much in the player's favour already.

[neekoy]

My notice period was 12 months when I left the defence force, why don't they just stipulate the same notice period.

I say let them go, if they get injured then the club cuts them loose.

I know people are worried about smaller clubs doing business but how nice of us to give some of the players we have had notice. You are under performing, 4 weeks later we get rid with no penalty.

Same as when we got relegated, how nice, all the high paid players we don't want to keep, 4 week notice. How much more financially better off would be be.