McParland's back, Macia not gone!

[ToxtethTerror]

Thanks RR.

[dansoc]

i never really post on here, for many reasons really, but, for what it's worth:

 

i think it's good news, primarily for the impending 6+5 UEFA guidelines that are going to be implemented shortly, from what i know.

 

rafa needs people around him who he can trust and who he works well with. the academy is in a shit-state, and the UEFA proposals will change the landscape of academy football and the production of homegrown players...and, put it this way, there isn't many 'homegrown' for liverpool to pick from, especially when you think that once these are imposed, carra will probably be out of the frame.

 

the clock's ticking and rafa's making the first moves, so good on him.

[stringvest]

I'm sure there is a bit of the 'yes man' about the post, but if that's what Benitez wants, then surely that's what he should have to keep him happy? I'd rather we had a team of yes men in there than anyone who would challenge Benitez's view, because focus would be lost and the machinations would begin again.

 

McParland isn't going to challenge Benitez - he's been scraping around the lower league clubs for a job - he's one step away from packing shelves at Sainsbury's or driving a taxi.

 

He will be Benitez's eyes and ears at the Academy. For those who love, like, dislike, or can't stand Benitez, surely that's a good thing? It would appear that this is an initial engagement to do the 'review', but I can see him being retained after that.

[zigackly]

Who here thinks Macia deserves a new contract?

 

Already? He's only just got one.

[rebel23]

 

i think it's good news, primarily for the impending 6+5 UEFA guidelines that are going to be implemented shortly, from what i know..

 

those have no chance of coming in and the Premier League are dead against it

[dansoc]

[hrIGHT][/hrIGHT]

those have no chance of coming in and the Premier League are dead against it

 

premier league clubs are not against it and it's coming sooner than people think. but, each to their own beliefs, and i appreciate that.

[ToxtethTerror]

It's illegal I think.

[Anubis]

It will clash with EU Law as it prevents the free movement of workers throughout the EU. I think Rash is right when he says it's illegal.

[SpeedyG]

It's illegal I think.

 

As with all laws there are exceptions, they're just seeking to make sport one of them.

[ToxtethTerror]

As with all Laws they are easy to implement, it's only when someone challenges them in the courts that it all goes a bit tits up.

[SpeedyG]

Interesting article on Bosman and quotas.

 

THE BOSMAN CASE

 

 

FACT-SHEET ONE:

THE BOSMAN CASE, EU LAW AND THE TRANSFER SYSTEM

 

 

 

WHAT IS THE BOSMAN CASE?

 

The Bosman Case was a legal decision made by the European Court of Justice in 1995. The case challenged the legality of the system of transfers for football players and the existence of so-called 'quota systems', whereby only a limited number of foreign players were allowed to play in a club match. The decision binds all football governing bodies that are based in the European Union, and indirectly affects all UEFA competitions even though UEFA is based in non-E.U. Switzerland.

 

WHAT WAS THE SITUATION BEFORE BOSMAN?

 

Before the Bosman case, the situation in European football was very different with regard to player transfers and quotas. Prior to Bosman, a football player could only move to another club with the agreement of both clubs. Usually this agreement was only reached by the setting of a "transfer fee", whereby the buying club actually purchased the player from the selling club. This applied regardless of whether or not the player’s contract with the selling club had ended. Hence, out of contract players were not allowed to sign a contract with a new team until a transfer fee had been paid, or they had been granted a free transfer.

 

Secondly, prior to the Bosman case, quota systems existed in many national leagues and also in the UEFA club competitions. The quota systems meant that only a limited number of foreign players could play in a particular match. For example, in the UEFA club competitions, only 3 foreign players (plus 2 ‘assimilated’ foreign players) could play for a team.

 

WHY DID THE BOSMAN CASE COME ABOUT?

 

The Bosman case arose because of a Belgium player called Jean-Marc Bosman. Bosman’s contract with Belgium club side RFC Liege had run out and he wanted to be transferred to French club Dunkerque. Liege, however, refused to let Bosman leave without the payment of a transfer fee which Dunkerque were unwilling to pay. Bosman claimed that as a European Union citizen, he possessed the right to "freedom of movement" within the European Union if he wished to find work (then Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome - now Art. 39 of the EU Treaty). The transfer system prevented him exercising his right to freedom of movement and Bosman argued that the system should be changed so that players who were out of contract with their club could move to another club without the paying of a transfer fee.

 

WHAT WAS THE DECISION IN THE BOSMAN CASE?

 

The case was heard at the European Court of Justice, and the court found in favour of Bosman and against RFC Liege, the Belgium Football Association and UEFA. There were two important decisions:

 

1. Transfer fees for out-of-contract players were illegal where a player was moving between one E.U. nation and another. From now on only players still serving contracts with their teams could have transfer fees paid for them.

 

2. Quota systems were also held to be illegal. Club sides are now able to play as many foreigners from other European Union states as they liked (although limits on players from outside the E.U. could still be imposed).

 

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE BOSMAN CASE?

 

The implications of the Bosman case are far-reaching for football across Europe. Clubs now need to sign players for longer contracts than before, otherwise they will risk losing their players on free transfers. Unfortunately smaller clubs cannot afford to sign longer contracts with players (especially young players) who may not fulfil their potential. Therefore, the good players at smaller clubs will usually be able to move to a bigger club on a free transfer. The money small clubs used to make from transfer fees is rapidly drying up because a buying club will prefer to ‘buy’ out of contact players. In the long run, the Bosman case may well lead to smaller clubs either going to the wall or being forced to turn amateur.

 

Secondly, the Bosman case has worked to the players' benefit. Because out of contract players are so sought after, the players can demand higher wages, and move to the club that offers the best wages. If effect, the Bosman case has increased ‘player power’ considerably. Now, as in all other industries, the best employees will have control over their own career, and will be able to demand wages that many would argue reflect their skills.

 

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.

 

FURTHER READING

 

*

 

Belgian FA v Bosman [1996] All ER [EC] 97

* Blanpain, R and Inston, R, (1996) The Bosman Case, Sweet & Maxwell: London

* Caigner and Gardiner, (2000) Professional Sport in the European Union: Regulation and Re-regulation, TMC Asser: The Hague

* Crolley, L, Levermore, R, and Pearson, G (2002) ‘For Business or Pleasure? A Discussion of the Impact of European Union Law on the Economic and Socio-Cultural Aspects of Football’ European Sports Management Quarterly Vol.2 No.4: 276

* McArdle, D, (2000) From Boot Money to Bosman: Football Society and the Law, Cavendish: London, pp13-61.

* Morris, P, Morrow, S and Spink, P (1996) ‘E.C. Law and Professional Football: Bosman and its Implications’, Modern Law Review, November: 893

* Parrish, R, (2003) ‘Sports Law and Policy in the European Union’, Manchester University Press

* Weatherill, S. (2003) ‘”Fair Play Please!” Recent Developments in the Application of E.C. Law to Sport’, Common Market Law Review, No. 40: 51-73

* Europa - The European Union On-Line (European Commission’s Website)

European Union Sports - information on Sports in EU (Sport in the EU site)

 

CONTACT:Dr Geoff Pearson, Football Industry Group, University of Liverpool

 

REFERENCING THIS FACTSHEET

 

Pearson, G. (University of Liverpool FIG Factsheet) - THE BOSMAN CASE, accessed CURRENT DATE)

[Catch22]

[hrIGHT][/hrIGHT]

 

premier league clubs are not against it and it's coming sooner than people think. but, each to their own beliefs, and i appreciate that.

 

 

There is no chance of it coming in.

 

It is illegal.

[Salou]

A lot of people are saying this 6+5 is illegal. It's not fully illegal, we were discussing this in my EU Law class the other day. There are ways around this free movement provision when it comes to the sporting arena. This is going to sound stupid and obvious, but look at national football teams, only an englishmen can play for England right? There are ways around this provision so the legality of it probably won't be a massive factor although it could easily be argued both ways.

 

EDIT: I m just talking about within the European Union by the way here, not sure about International Laws as such in this area.

[ToxtethTerror]

How many international teams are going to take the federation to court because they can't select Messi? Would Messi want to play for them either? It's also not a restriction of trade because they already have a primary job at their clubs. So I don't think there is a link there. The 6+5 law I like, but it is blatently flawed and would be busted as soon as it reached a court.

[Salou]

How many international teams are going to take the federation to court because they can't select Messi? Would Messi want to play for them either? It's also not a restriction of trade because they already have a primary job at their clubs. So I don't think there is a link there. The 6+5 law I like, but it is blatently flawed and would be busted as soon as it reached a court.

 

I hear what you're saying, all i'm saying is there are ways for Blatter and Platini to be able to get away with this, and it probably wouldn't be that difficult. The fact that it is a sporting arena and not like any other 'career' clouds the water a little.

[SpeedyG]

A lot of people are saying this 6+5 is illegal. It's not fully illegal, we were discussing this in my EU Law class the other day. There are ways around this free movement provision when it comes to the sporting arena. This is going to sound stupid and obvious, but look at national football teams, only an englishmen can play for England right? There are ways around this provision so the legality of it probably won't be a massive factor although it could easily be argued both ways.

 

EDIT: I m just talking about within the European Union by the way here, not sure about International Laws as such in this area.

 

To your point.

 

Home Grown Rule + No transfers of U18s = Quota's

[Salou]

To your point.

 

Home Grown Rule + No transfers of U18s = Quota's

 

Are you saying there is already a quota system in place because of these two rules?

[SpeedyG]

Are you saying there is already a quota system in place because of these two rules?

 

No but the Home Grown rule, for some reason (see the Bosman article above), is deemed acceptable for the CL so it wouldn't be a surprise if it was extended to domestic leagues. UEFA have also been talking about restricting transfers of U18s. If they introduced that + the home grown rule you effectively have quotas and the word nationality wasn't mentioned once!

[Salou]

No but the Home Grown rule, for some reason (see the Bosman article above), is deemed acceptable for the CL so it wouldn't be a surprise if it was extended to domestic leagues. UEFA have also been talking about restricting transfers of U18s. If they introduced that + the home grown rule you effectively have quotas and the word nationality wasn't mentioned once!

 

Ahh I get yah mate. Showing again how easy it would probably be for them to get the provision in place.

[m0e]

From Barrett today:

 

Meanwhile, former Reds chief scout Frank McParland is set to be named as Liverpool’s new academy director.

 

At the start of March McParland was tasked with conducting a review into the under-performing academy and his findings and recommendations have now been passed on to Benitez and club owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

 

Benitez is looking to make urgent improvements to Liverpool’s youth set up and his first major move will be to give McParland a newly created position which will involve overseeing all coaching and recruitment at the academy.

 

Benitez has spoken on several occasions of the need for the academy to produce more players of first team quality and McParland’s appointment as director will be the first of a series of changes the Reds boss is hoping to implement soon.

 

Liverpool Echo.co.uk - Liverpool FC - News - Daniel Agger: Let's clean up at the back

[SpeedyG]

From Barrett today:

 

Meanwhile, former Reds chief scout Frank McParland is set to be named as Liverpool’s new academy director.

 

At the start of March McParland was tasked with conducting a review into the under-performing academy and his findings and recommendations have now been passed on to Benitez and club owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

 

Benitez is looking to make urgent improvements to Liverpool’s youth set up and his first major move will be to give McParland a newly created position which will involve overseeing all coaching and recruitment at the academy.

 

Benitez has spoken on several occasions of the need for the academy to produce more players of first team quality and McParland’s appointment as director will be the first of a series of changes the Reds boss is hoping to implement soon.

 

Liverpool Echo.co.uk - Liverpool FC - News - Daniel Agger: Let's clean up at the back

 

I hate to be the one to point it out, but are not the academy team on the threshold of their 3rd youth cup final in 4 years and the reserves just off the bottom of the league with very very good players playing way way below themselves?

[INTORRESTING]

i think we have to look at producing players and look past the results.

 

A settled team is always likely to do better than a team of individuals. Heighway kept the same kids together and they had a team ethic and did well which is understandable as those things help get results but we need individuals and producing individuals does not always mean you will get results.

 

Producing individuals and getting results is what is needed and thatis not happening at the mo. Rafa needs control and needs people like Insua to continue to break through as it will save us a fortune and allow us to go and buy the 1 big name signing a year.

[RSM]

where does this appointment leave Malcolm Elias? Is he not in charge of recruitment at academy level? Also given some of the players we've signed at that level, he seems to be doing a very good job. Players like dalle valle, buchtman, amoo and pepper look very promising with the potential to be liverpool first teamers.

[SpeedyG]

i think we have to look at producing players and look past the results.

 

A settled team is always likely to do better than a team of individuals. Heighway kept the same kids together and they had a team ethic and did well which is understandable as those things help get results but we need individuals and producing individuals does not always mean you will get results.

 

Producing individuals and getting results is what is needed and thatis not happening at the mo. Rafa needs control and needs people like Insua to continue to break through as it will save us a fortune and allow us to go and buy the 1 big name signing a year.

 

No I know it's more complicated than I made out, but the irony is delicious. On a serious note I don't think you could disagree that even from a development perspective people like Nemeth and Plessis have made huge strides backwards. Again not necessarily attributing it to the setup, it's just ironic.

[hamstrung]

I hate to be the one to point it out, but are not the academy team on the threshold of their 3rd youth cup final in 4 years and the reserves just off the bottom of the league with very very good players playing way way below themselves?

 

Pretty irrelevant if the players don't end up making the step up. No one really has for a while (pre-dating Rafa), so something is evidently amiss.