Is "Player Power" a thing of the past?

[Paulie Dangerously]

Does Southampton & Leipzig rejecting huge bids for players who actively want to leave show that "player power" in forcing a move is a thing of the past?

 

 

Discuss

[Pureblood]

It depends.  Coutinho, VvD and Keita all have long contracts.  As their contracts run down so their power increases (Bosman).  But even with five and six year contracts respectively, Coutinho and VvD could end up moving this summer.  

[The Guest]

The fact that they're all striking suggests not. It's going to be an interesting period if none move though. Previously it just wasn't worth the hassle and clubs would need the money. Now though clubs don't 'need' the money from transfer fees necessarily. Add that to the fact that if clubs want to push on from where they are they don't want to sell their players to the next tier of clubs who they're aiming to take the place of.

[Captain]

It depends.  Coutinho, VvD and Keita all have long contracts.  As their contracts run down so their power increases (Bosman).  But even with five and six year contracts respectively, Coutinho and VvD could end up moving this summer.  

 

Absolutely.

 

Does anyone expect Can to sign a new contract now? I know I don't.

[Guest]

It has shifted from

 

1) club power, pre-Bosman

2) player power, post-Bosman

3) agent power, post-Abrahamovic.

 

I'm pretty sure Chelsea's owner was the first super-wealthy owner to create a 'money-no-object' ethos (although Jack Walker at Blackburn may have a claim to this) and that's when agents started to realise they could make a fortune. Players don't have the tricks up their sleeve to manipulate and coerce, but agents are shit-hot at it.

 

For me, agent power is where the true power lies. Until they are regulated, nothing will change.

[eeyore]

from now on release clauses in player contracts will be the norm. expect tons more bosmans also

[Brownie]

Player power has ended with the newest TV deal. Clubs used to be faced with the stark reality of not being able to afford to refuse big money. Now they can.

 

I don't think it's a bad thing, overall.

[Pureblood]

Absolutely.

 

Does anyone expect Can to sign a new contract now? I know I don't.

 

It doesn't look like he will.  I appreciate where he's coming from.  With the pursuit of Keita he would probably be the one to make way.

[The Guest]

It's no surprise to me that players don't really pull these stunts and Chelsea or City though. They've had the money to basically ruin a players career for a while. They didn't cave into Tevez and when he was throwing his strop and he came crawling back. It's to the point Barca and Real don't really bother even going in for their players. It would be good to change things in the long run by just outright refusing this Coutinho move.

[VERBAL DIARRHEA]

Don't know how it works but any player fit and refusing to play should be fined and have their wages stopped. If it already happens, good.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Absolutely.

 

Does anyone expect Can to sign a new contract now? I know I don't.

He won't be going to Juve. They have signed Matuidi.

[jimmycase]

It has shifted from

 

1) club power, pre-Bosman

2) player power, post-Bosman

3) agent power, post-Abrahamovic.

 

I'm pretty sure Chelsea's owner was the first super-wealthy owner to create a 'money-no-object' ethos (although Jack Walker at Blackburn may have a claim to this) and that's when agents started to realise they could make a fortune. Players don't have the tricks up their sleeve to manipulate and coerce, but agents are shit-hot at it.

 

For me, agent power is where the true power lies. Until they are regulated, nothing will change.

 

Tend to agree with this. I dont think clubs have got more power over players because one way or another, sooner or later the player \ agent will get the player out of a club.

 

We might keep coutinho for a year, southampton may sell in january but th eplayer will still get their way.

[aRdja]

Neymar?

[Pureblood]

Neymar was oil power.

[Stickman]

Football's fucked no matter who has the power.

[clangers]

Absolutely.

 

Does anyone expect Can to sign a new contract now? I know I don't.

He's ultimately not doing anything wrong. He's simply honouring the terms of his contract. Clubs have gone out of their way to represent a player doing this as in some way dishonourable whilst at the same time stating the obligations of a player under contract.

 

It's certainly not all one way, clubs will routinely make a players situation difficult when they're no longer required. A change in management can rapidly result in a player under a long contract training with the reserves, being floated to other clubs and made clear they need to go somewhere else. Clubs in certain circumstances have no hesitation manipulating their supporter base against the player to force them to move on particularly when they enter the last two years of a contract.

[Trumo]

For me, agent power is where the true power lies. Until they are regulated, nothing will change.

 

Agree with that assessment. At the moment, clubs are having their squads shaped by agents' whims. Players have more power than their clubs but all are beholden to agents. Regulation only works to a certain extent. I don't know if the way contracts are drawn up needs to be revised but it's my thinking that much more needs to be done in this area. A few things I would look at changing:

 

- A total ban on third-party ownership globally. EIther a club owns 100% of a player's registration, or they don't.

 

- The removal of release clauses. Spanish and Portuguese employment law apparently requires them but if that stipulation continues to be legally enforced, it should only apply to movement of players in those countries. It will at the very least minimise the likelihood of blatant shams like PSG's Neymar deal.

 

- All new contracts signed must be adhered to by both the player and the club for a minimum of 12 months from commencement. That includes contract extensions.

 

- Whether the player is selected for matchday squads should have no bearing on the contract being adhered to as it should simply be a case of the player making himself available for all playing commitments with his club, and the club honouring payment of his salary. Selection should be based on merit as judged by the coaching staff.

 

- The removal of 'loyalty' bonuses. Both parties honouring a contract should mean the 'loyalty' aspect is completely redundant.

 

- The removal of appearance-based add-ons from transfer agreements to prevent clubs from holding back on selecting a player to avoid fulfilling payment for meeting the criteria of these add-ons.

 

- The removal of sell-on clauses. Once a club has sold a player, they should have no economic rights to that player's future. In loose legal terms, they are a third party.

 

- The removal of buy-back clauses. Negotiations for player transfers should be between the club that owns the player's registration, and the interested club(s). Again, once a club has sold a player, they shouldn't hold any contractual advantage if and when they become interested in signing that player once more.

 

- If a player's agent want to discuss terms with another club, he must inform the player's club before doing so. I know this is a huge grey area but it's become like that precisely because the parties involved have made it deliberately murky.

 

- A player is only allowed a maximum of 2 spells out on loan, for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of one season, for the entire duration of his stay at the club that owns his registration. The two separate spells can be with the same club each time. The idea is to prevent clubs from stockpiling players, loaning them out repeatedly, getting them to sign contract extensions every 2 or 3 years, yet never selecting them for the first team. We all know one club in particular who does this.

 

I'll probably think of more as well as tweaking the suggestions above, but if an element of stability is introduced and enforced across the board, then in simple terms it could help prevent any one of them from having too much power.

[VladimirIlyich]

Agents mostly make their money from transfers or their players being given new contracts,hence the agitation for a transfer or a new contract on a regular basis. Agents are cunts.

[TheHowieLama]

No.

 

Next question.

[amli]

Hell no, we playas never gonna die homie.

[Remmie]

I believe a player should be allowed to leave if they want to just like any other workplace scenario, that includes Coutinho (as well as Keita and Van Dijk). Imagine being kept stuck at a workplace you dislike when a better option is on the table.

 

Has anyone ever staggered pay terms for every year served, i.e: First year you get £100k per week, year 2 £120k and so on? If not, I am sure there is a reason it's a bad idea that I haven't realised yet!

[JustTosh]

Are there any rules protecting the players?

 

 

Let's say I'm Abramovichly rich and own a team. I have a fall-out with a player who's on a 5 year contract. I decide I don't care how much it costs, I'll stuck him in the reserves and deny him any playing time. He can sit and rut with the reserves for the remainder of his contract. I*m not selling and I don't want him to play!

 

 

In this scenario. Can the player force a move to another club? Or does the owner have the right to more or less ruin his career?

[Anubis]

Won't players just start to insist on reasonable release clauses in their contracts?

[The Guest]

Are there any rules protecting the players?[/size]

 

 [/size]

Let's say I'm Abramovichly rich and own a team. I have a fall-out with a player who's on a 5 year contract. I decide I don't care how much it costs, I'll stuck him in the reserves and deny him any playing time. He can sit and rut with the reserves for the remainder of his contract. I*m not selling and I don't want him to play![/size]

 

 [/size]

In this scenario. Can the player force a move to another club? Or does the owner have the right to more or less ruin his career?[/size]

There's rules about being able to buy your contract out if you have played less than 10% of the games you've been available for. I think this is definitely going to come up in a legal sense at some point and it's a very delicate subject. There is the argument that players should be able to just up and fuck off to whatever employer they want like in any other walk of life but if that became the case it would destroy youth football as we know it.

 

I actually think it would be a negative for football players on the whole as well. There's far more footballers sitting on overpaid contracts who are past it or have eased off because they've earned the contract than there are quality footballers being underpaid. There also the issue of injuries. If players can walk out when they want there would be no point in clubs tying down players for anything longer than a year so why bother funding the medical recuperation of players.

 

It's in everyone's interests for the system to stay as it is with a few tweaks here and there. The agents don't care about that though. They want as much money as they can now. Eventually a Coutinho or a Van Dijk is going to end up in court arguing workers rights etc and it could all go tits up from there.

[JustTosh]

Good post.

 

Thank you for informing me about the 10% rule.

 

Haven't thought through the consequenses, but there seems to be a lot of sense in your views.