Blatter - Let Ronaldo leave

[Scouse_Datcha]

He says that there is so much slavery in football today so gayboy should leave if he wants to.

 

Slavery ??

They get paid silly money for playing football, its not carpetmaking 18 ours a day ffs.

 

To have Blatter talking about an ongoing prosess like this is for me wrong.

 

Sky Sports

[coop]

Its the way football is going in that contracts are not worth anything.

 

From the freedom of work point of view then Ronaldo is not allowed to work where he wants to and his being held against his will to play for Man United.

 

I know it makes him sound hard done by and thats the last thing that a modern day footballer is but the principal is still the same.

 

Its a similar scenario with Gareth Barry but the difference that buggers Barry up is Villa are not stopping him from moving but are asking a silly amount to buy him.

[G Richards]

Since it is Man Utd I find it amusing. Anything that annoys them can't be bad.

 

On the other hand, Blatter is well out of order here. He should not comment, and by using the words 'modern slavery' he is unwise. If a player wants to keep his options open then he should not sign a lengthy contract. Or if he does sign such a contract, then he needs a clear clause in there giving him the option to leave if x and y happens (insert scenario).

 

Or, ideally, he finds a club he loves, settles down, does his stuff, and starts becoming a legend. Thank you Torres. What a pleasure it is to have such talent AND class. Ronaldo is a minnow by comparison.

[Thants]

Slavery - football doesnt need this cunt.

[Jose Jones]

It’s bollocks.

If a footballer wants to be free to move anywhere whenever they like, they should play on a week-by-week contract, and not sign a 5 year multi million pound deal.

It’s the same as most jobs, if you sign a contract to work for a company for a particularly period of time – you have to work to the end of that contract, then you are free to go somewhere else.

If the company breaks the contract you get a pay out, if you break the contract the company can normally stop you from working anywhere else if they want to.

 

Edit - beat me to it G, without the swear word as well.

[zico]

Modern slavery is more a matter of all football teams having to belong to and follow all directives given by the most corrupt organization on earth, FIFA....

 

I still find it amusing that someone actually still have the balls to wind up Whiskeyface....

 

Ronaldo wanting to leave, his assistant leaving, FIFA now taking the side of Ronaldo - he'll loose it soon and be institutionalized ;)

[Dirk]

As much as this goes against our footballing instincts, Blatter is unfortunately correct, his use of language with the word "slavery" is a bit over the top. However, I've read information on the University of Liverpool's football industry group and that said that, if a player challenged it in court, they would probably win and have to only give notice, like you and I have to at work and that, by extension, the transfer fee system would be blown out of the water, with a fee of about £800 000 being paid to the team that the player wanted to leave. These contracts stand against employment laws so it's only a matter of time before somebody challenges. It would change the game forever and the players wages would become even more ridiculous.

[NIred1]

Blatter never ceases to embarass himself.

[Jose Jones]

Hmm, I wonder if we have any employment lawyers on here. I seriously doubt that footballers contracts are against employment law, and I’d imagine they do have clauses in as regards to notice period, ie, there is no notice period and the contract must be fulfilled. As I said it is the same with any other job. People can be precluded from working in even the same industry for years, quite legally, in some cases.

And it works both ways with football – if the contracts were illegal, surely some club would have just cancelled a players contract? Do you reckon Chelsea would have kept paying Bogarde for 5 years while he trained with the kids?

[Eiler]

Good stuff from Blatter there.

 

Fuck the mancs.

[Dirk]

Hmm, I wonder if we have any employment lawyers on here. I seriously doubt that footballers contracts are against employment law, and I’d imagine they do have clauses in as regards to notice period, ie, there is no notice period and the contract must be fulfilled. As I said it is the same with any other job. People can be precluded from working in even the same industry for years, quite legally, in some cases.

And it works both ways with football – if the contracts were illegal, surely some club would have just cancelled a players contract? Do you reckon Chelsea would have kept paying Bogarde for 5 years while he trained with the kids?

 

I've read a slightly different one to this. The piece I read implied that if somebody challenged the compromise in court they would probably win.

 

POST-BOSMAN CHALLENGES TO THE TRANSFER SYSTEM

 

In 2000, the European Commission announced that it was taking action against the football authorities because the current international transfer system breaches the right to freedom of movement between E.U. states under the Treaty of Amsterdam, even for players who are still under contract. They argued that footballers who wished to unilaterally break their contract of employment should be able to leave with a term of notice, as employees in other sectors can do, with only a relatively small amount of compensation being paid in return.

 

This action led to a compromise being reached between the football authorities and the Commission which was ratified by FIFA's executive in summer 2001. The new transfer regulations apply to every player who signed a contract after 1st September 2001 and is involved in an international transfer and state that unless all parties agree to the payment of a fee, no transfer fee is payable. The regulations are as follows (and are reproduced in more detail on http://www.FIFA.com):

1: Training Compensation for Players under 23 to replace transfer fees

2: Protection of contracts for the first 2-3 years by - a sporting sanction of a four month suspension for a player who unilaterally breaches their contract within this period - compensation reflecting the wages and period left on the contract of the player in accordance with national law

3: Movement for players only in 2 transfer "windows" a season

4: The creation of an independent and objective disciplinary and arbitration system to deal with contractual disputes and compensation.

 

THE WEBSTER CASE

 

The new transfer regulations, however have been slow in being applied to football and it was only in 2008 that the Court of Arbitration for Sport finally ruled that the new regulations effectively abolished transfer fees for players who were out of their 'protected period' in the case of Heart of Midlothian v Webster and Wigan Athletic, (2008, CAS Decisions: 2007/A/1298-1300). Andy Webster had been a plauyer at Hearts who effectively handed in his notice to Hearts FC and signed for Wigan Athletic. He had served 3 years of a 4 year contract. The SFA’s attempt to prevent the release of his International Transfer Certificate was blocked by FIFA’s player status committee who ruled the player’s actions followed the new rules (because his protected period had expired). Hearts tried to claim a £5m transfer fee for the player. In January 2008 CAS ruled that Hearts could not demand a transfer fee and the actual amount of compensation was £150,000 – which was the residual amount of the contract remaining when Webster resigned. The case effectively finally implements the 2001 regulations in the way they were intended. Now any player who is 2 or 3 years into their contract can resign and move to a club of their choice without it having a pay a transfer fee.

 

QUOTA SYSTEMS AND THE HOMEGROWN PLAYER RULES

 

The current legal situation is that any quotas limiting the number of foreigners (who are EU citizens) from club football are illegal. Direct discrimination on the grounds of nationality is expressly prohibited by EU law and the Commission and ECJ have made it clear that any attempt to bring in the type of quota system that existed before the Bosman case would be challenged. As a result, suggestions in 2008 by FIFA that a '6+5' rule could be implemented are misleading. The situation regarding UEFA's Homegrown Player rule is less clear. The rule is discriminatory under EU law but unlike the Quota System it is indirect, rather than direct discrimination. Therefore it is possible that the system could be justified under EU law if it achieves its objectives of increasing the quality of the academy systems.

 

THE FUTURE FOR EU LAW AND FOOTBALL

 

EU law is of huge importance for the football industry throughout the world. Although the EU accepts the 'specificity of sport', it grants no exemption from EU law for the industry. Where purely sporting rules are integral for the sport and are considered proportionate (e.g. eligibility rules for International football) these can be justified, but where rules are either not integral for sport or have a disproportionate impact on EU rights they can be challenged by the Commission or in the European Court of Justice.

 

This factsheet has focussed on the impact of Article 39, but of greater significance to football are the rules of Competition Law. EU Competition Law prohibits anti-competitive agreements (Article 81) and prohibits abuse of a dominant market position (Article 82). Since all football's governing bodies are effectively monopolies, this means that they must act reasonably and not abuse their position, otherwise they will be in breach of EU law. In recent years, FIFA and UEFA have been successfully challenged over ticketing policies (France98 and MM2006 Germany) and TV rights for the Champions League and Premiership have been broken down. Article 82 would also mean that any attempt by FIFA, UEFA or a domestic Association to prevent, for example, a breakaway league, would also be seen as unlawful.

 

THE BOSMAN CASE

[G Richards]

Now I'm hoping he goes for £800K! (Well, apart from the negative affect that might have on us further down the line with our own players).

[Jose Jones]

Well, I suppose there is that.

[dirty_sanchez]

Now I'm hoping he goes for £800K! (Well, apart from the negative affect that might have on us further down the line with our own players).

 

That would make my entire summer. United lose their assistant manager and their best player leaves at a £11.5m loss. Happy day.

[Redexile]

As much as this goes against our footballing instincts, Blatter is unfortunately correct, his use of language with the word "slavery" is a bit over the top. However, I've read information on the University of Liverpool's football industry group and that said that, if a player challenged it in court, they would probably win and have to only give notice, like you and I have to at work and that, by extension, the transfer fee system would be blown out of the water, with a fee of about £800 000 being paid to the team that the player wanted to leave. These contracts stand against employment laws so it's only a matter of time before somebody challenges. It would change the game forever and the players wages would become even more ridiculous.

 

 

I think the Ronaldo issue could blow the whole thing wide open TBH. Blatter is correct in a sense but why has this issue never been put on the table before? Because it didn't suit Blatter.

Oh and while we're at it Mr Blatter let's look at the issue of club and country and fair compensation to clubs when a player is injured when playing for hius country.

[Dirk]

Thinking about it, though, I read that piece prior to the Webster ruling, it would be interesting to see what the legal position is post Webster. That's probably why the piece is different to the one I read, it was a really similar piece, so it's more than likely it has been amended following the Webster outcome.

[dave u]

I don't like Blatter, but in his defence could the word 'slavery' just be how what he said was translated into English? Maybe he used another word that means something similar, but not as strong, and it just sounds worse when translated.

 

Or maybe he's just a dick, I don't really care either way, just playing devils advocate.

[cotter]

I don't like Blatter, but in his defence could the word 'slavery' just be how what he said was translated into English? Maybe he used another word that means something similar, but not as strong, and it just sounds worse when translated.

 

Or maybe he's just a dick, I don't really care either way, just playing devils advocate.

 

think he gave the interview in english. wrong choice of word, but the rest of what he said doesn't seem that outlandish.

 

everyone knows contracts don't mean shit anymore. the mancs are only having done to them what they've done to others.

[Guest PaddyBerger15]

If footballers want to be treated like any other employee in any other sector, then they should be paid like any other employee in any other sector....simple. Footballers can leave by giving notice, say 3 months, but get paid the national average wage. I wonder how many minutes it would take before they hanker for the return of the lucrative, long term, multi million pound contracts then?

[JohnnyH]

If footballers want to be treated like any other employee in any other sector, then they should be paid like any other employee in any other sector....simple. Footballers can leave by giving notice, say 3 months, but get paid the national average wage. I wonder how many minutes it would take before they hanker for the return of the lucrative, long term, multi million pound contracts then?

 

The top top employees in the other sectors get top top money. Football is no different. The idea that footballers are overpaid is rubbish. If a club posts a profit then the majority of the money should go to the players and coaches. No one seems to complain when a top actor gets £20m for 3 months work on a movie that lasts 2 hours, yet people are up in arms about someone at the very top of their trade getting £5m for a years work in the entertainment industry where they perform 60-70 times a year with intense training inbetween. Any clubs posting a loss due to players wages have only themselves to blame. A players career is over by the time they are 35. At this stage of anyone elses career they have not even got to the top positions in their place of work. This wnt happen for another decade at least.

 

People are very quick to hop off the likes of Ronaldo whe he declares he wants to leave, saying things about a contract been worthless, etc. However, when a club decides they want to sell a player then no one complains and we never hear about how contracts are worthless then. On a lot of occasions clubs offer players 5 year contracts so they know that when they sell the player in a few years they can get top dollar for him. It works both ways.

 

The other one I hear is that all the power is in the players hands now and not the clubs. Well damn fucking right it is, and that's how it should be. If someone isn't happy and wants to leave their job, then they should be allowed. They should not be help back. It's not like the company (Man Utd in this case) are not going be handsomely compensated.

 

The top end footballers get paid huge money becasue their clubs bring in huge money on their backs. They don't owe the club anything as their talent was going to ensure they were a success no matter what club they went to. If a player wants to leave and anbother club is willing to pay £60m or £70m to a club for him then that's perfectly fair.

[Guest PaddyBerger15]

Johnny, while I don't disagree with anything that you have said above, and I was playing Devils Advocate to an extent, football isn't like any other 'job' though. Its about the club being able to build a 'team'. The argument was always that footballers have a short career, there is that much money swilling around in the game that they are entitled to earn whatever they want based on their ability and put up against the amount that clubs are earning...all of that is true....but the basis of these contracts has always been that footballers have a 'protected' contract. They sign for 5 years, no period of notice, they know where they are, what they are entitled to etc...and on the reverse side of that is that clubs also need to know where they are at. They can't decide to build the short and medium term future around a partnership or 2 or 3 key players just to have the players then give a months notice and all of those plans being disrupted. What I am saying is that nowhere in any other form of employment is the 'team' as important as it is in sport, and particularly football, its a fluid and dynamic operation, not just on a weekly or yearly basis, but on a 90 minute basis. Players can't have it all ways, they can't earn 50k per week AND be subject to the same easy come, easy go rules of employment that are prevalent in say being a binman or a librarian or a typist or whatever. If you want the rewards that 'protected' status brings, then you have to suffer the swings and arrows that go with it. An actor is paid for say 2 or 3 films, or signs a contract for a particular piece of work, and although a company takes a chance on that film being a blockbuster to get its return, the company also doesn't have to take the risk of that actor being out with a knee injury for a year either.

All I'm saying is that if footballers want to be just like any and every other employee with the benefits and/or drawbacks that go with it, then they should be rewarded as such. Once footballers can leave a club with a month or 2 notice, then that will undermine the whole basis of the game, which is effectively a team sport.

[robslappa]

There's no way on God's green earth Blatter would have mentioned slavery or said the player should be allowed to leave if he was talking about a Real Madrid player wanting to go to the Mancs or any other English team. He's as corrupt as his little lap dog in Uefa.

[JohnnyH]

All I'm saying is that if footballers want to be just like any and every other employee with the benefits and/or drawbacks that go with it, then they should be rewarded as such. Once footballers can leave a club with a month or 2 notice, then that will undermine the whole basis of the game, which is effectively a team sport.

 

I would disagree that teams are not vital in other business. A small group of senior management at a director level (which is what a top footballer basically is) is vital. One leaves and it can cast a major spanner in the works and lead to the difficulty of trying to prize another good Director away from a rival company and stay succcesfull.

 

While I agree that a footballer leaving with a month or 2 notice is not good, if the club are treating the player well and offering fair pay then they will stay. You cannot keep people somewhere they don't want to be. I would have sympathy if clubs didn't offload players in the middle of contracts, but they do the exact same thing. Basically clubs want to have their cakes and eat them, and that can't be right. A "protected" contract should work both ways, but it doesn't. The day a club doesn't shaft footballers will be the day that footballers don't shaft a club, i.e. never.

[robbief]

he said the same about barry coming to us and lampard to milan. why come on he and emphisise on that greasy little cunt?

[05 Milan]

Yet again, Sepp Blatters to deceive.