Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Football] Diarra legal action against FIFA (Bosman 2.0)



Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's tackle

Harry Wilson's Tackle
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2003
55,383
Faversham
JetsetJimbo said:
We now have a decision, the CJEU has ruled against FIFA. I've never felt so stupid as I have this last half-hour or so of trying to figure out what this is gonna mean for clubs like ours in practice. I'm just totally baffled.
Click to expand...
This seems to be the key bit:

"he received an offer of a contract from the Belgian club Charleroi. It came with a condition: Charleroi wanted confirmation from Fifa that Diarra would be able to move and that they would not be liable for any of the costs owed to LokomotivFifa did not give those guarantees, with its rules mandating that an international transfer certificate must be granted by the league a player is leaving before any deal could take place. With no moneys having been paid to Lokomotiv, that permit was not forthcoming. "

So the Russian side's local FA refused to issue a permit allowing the transfer of the player to a team in another country.

The solution surely is that when a team has cancelled a player's contract the player should be free to move to another team. The 'international transfer certificate' thing needs to be binned surely?
 
Last edited:




Kalimantan Gull

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,374
Central Borneo / the Lizard
So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?
 


GingerBeerMan

GingerBeerMan

3-0
Dec 29, 2011
8,193
Kalimantan Gull said:
So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...
If only we had a world leading expert on football finance on this forum...

Seriously though, I'd love to know the answer.
 


AZ Gull

AZ Gull

@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Oct 14, 2003
12,965
Chandler, AZ
Kalimantan Gull said:
So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure; however, if that IS the outcome (effectively saying contracts are worthless) then presumably a club could just as easily get rid of a player (who has just been injured, let's say) part way through his contract and refuse to pay him?
 


trueblue

trueblue

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,898
Hove
From what I’ve read, one hopeful aspect is that it was established when the Super League was thwarted that EU law allows a sport to apply restrictions that would be illegal in other sectors if that’s essential to protect competitiveness. It’s hard to believe they will collapse the entire industry to the benefit of a handful of the world’s richest clubs. Our exemplary model would surely be dead if the likes of Caicedo could walk for nothing, or even have their value decided independently. Surely some compromise will be reached.

As teams have to name squads there needs to be some consistency but will players find contracts longer than a season no longer exist? Not really a step forward for them, especially if they get injured.
 




Kalimantan Gull

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,374
Central Borneo / the Lizard
AZ Gull said:
I'm not sure; however, if that IS the outcome (effectively saying contracts are worthless) then presumably a club could just as easily get rid of a player (who has just been injured, let's say) part way through his contract and refuse to pay him?
Click to expand...
Don't think it means that contracts are worthless, more that the players registration is worthless, because a club cannot hold on to their registration against the players wishes. (for players moving to/from an EU country, at least).

If the player wanted to break the contract he would have to comply with the break clauses contained within the contract, notice periods, gardening leave, etc. And the club could only terminate a players contract if there was just cause to do so.
 


AZ Gull

AZ Gull

@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Oct 14, 2003
12,965
Chandler, AZ
Kalimantan Gull said:
Don't think it means that contracts are worthless, more that the players registration is worthless, because a club cannot hold on to their registration against the players wishes. (for players moving to/from an EU country, at least).

If the player wanted to break the contract he would have to comply with the break clauses contained within the contract, notice periods, gardening leave, etc. And the club could only terminate a players contract if there was just cause to do so.
Click to expand...
But player contracts don't have break clauses - they are for a specified period of time.
 


Kalimantan Gull

Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,374
Central Borneo / the Lizard
AZ Gull said:
But player contracts don't have break clauses - they are for a specified period of time.
Click to expand...
I've never seen one... but any employment contract will include ways the contract can be terminated. At the end of the day you can't force someone to work for you if they don't want to work for you (otherwise its slavery). Its obviously rare, but you see it happen when players retire early, e.g. Varane this season. But if the player quits, the club still holds his registration so he can't play for anyone else until the end of the specified contract length - at least until this ruling, which says that preventing them working for anyone else is a restriction of trade and against EU rules.

(My mentioning break clauses, notice periods etc. is really referring to what will have to happen in the future if this ruling is upheld and means what I think it means)
 




Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,258
The Fatherland
Kalimantan Gull said:
So the ramifications are, as I read it, that a player can break his contract and move to a different club overseas (or at least within the EU) without his previous club being entitled to any compensation (ie a transfer fee)?

Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...
My take is that FIFA don’t have any say in transfers anymore. Transfers are now just straight contract law. A player can break a contract but I presume he’ll run the risk of being personally sued if he does. The difference is that if the player did this before today FIFA could block the move, they can’t now.
 




dwayne

dwayne

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
16,110
London
Herr Tubthumper said:
My take is that FIFA don’t have any say in transfers anymore. Transfers are now just straight contract law. A player can break a contract but I presume he’ll run the risk of being personally sued if he does. The difference is that if the player did this before today FIFA could block the move, they can’t now.
Click to expand...
Can't see a club suing a player. This has very grim ramifications. And as usual the rich boys paying the big wages come out winning.
 








Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,258
The Fatherland
dwayne said:
Can't see a club suing a player. This has very grim ramifications. And as usual the rich boys paying the big wages come out winning.
Click to expand...
If a player broke a contract to enable a move to another club why wouldn’t they? This is the whole point of a contract after all.
 




dwayne

dwayne

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
16,110
London
Herr Tubthumper said:
If a player broke a contract to enable a move to another club why wouldn’t they? This is the whole point of a contract after all.
Click to expand...
Yer but in this day and age you can't hold someone to stay somewhere especially if they claim mental health issues or some other crap. So if the other club who takes them on has no responsibility to pay compensation then it's a free for all.
 


Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,258
The Fatherland
dwayne said:
Yer but in this day and age you can't hold someone to stay somewhere especially if they claim mental health issues or some other crap. So if the other club who takes them on has no responsibility to pay compensation then it's a free for all.
Click to expand...
You can hold people to contracts and you can prevent them moving on under the terms of a contract. Dan Ashworth, twice, is a very recent example you should be familiar with. Had Dan joined either Newcastle or Man U whilst on gardening leave he would have been in trouble. He couldn’t claim mental health and then turn up at Newcastle the next day. It doesn’t work like that.

You seem to be suggesting contracts will now be worthless, which I don’t agree with.
 
Last edited:


K

Kinky Gerbil

Im The Scatman
NSC Patron
Jul 16, 2003
58,660
hassocks
Giraffe said:
Potentially the end of "small" clubs?
Click to expand...
My first thought is this has the potential to devastate lower league clubs who sell promising players to balance the books.

AFC Wimbledon have sold a player for a million or so in the past couple of Jan windows, where would they be without that income?
 


beorhthelm

beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,906
seems two issues. first is the judgment that if a player is out of contract, they can play elsewhere and FIFA cant restrict that. second is standing of contracts. interpretation is that either first issue invalids contract or makes it more likely players will press for moves. i dont see it, judgement doesn't change contracts directly. the effect of the ruling only comes in if the player is out of contract and clubs are no more likely to terminate contracts.
 




Herr Tubthumper

Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,258
The Fatherland
I know this will not happen, but it players could freely move between clubs for no fee it might not be a bad thing. Obviously there would a seismic readjustment of player salaries but then what? All clubs below the big 6, or 7 or whatever it is these days, operate on far smaller budgets and pay players a salary similar to what normal people earn. It’s all relative.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here