Frightening spectre in football

[JHB]

And get no compensation.

Well exactly. The reason they don’t sack them is they get paid, in some cases extremely well paid, for the player. It’s a commercial arrangement.

 

[JHB]

In essence, there are two big issues.
1 players and agents taking the piss, going on strike, disrespecting contracts.
2 the governing bodies creating laws that preserve the status quo of the top teams and not allowing other teams to progress fairly.

This is true but it is also true to say Palace are benefiting from financial rules and tv money in a way that 80% of all other clubs don’t.

For all we feel rubbish about selling Lacroix and JPM wanting a move how do we think Blackburn fans felt about us snapping up Wharton or Villarreal about Pino leaving them to join us? Yes football is unfair but we benefit from a lot of that unfairness ourselves

 

[MarkA333]

This is true. However there should be no glass ceiling and there is. And players and agents should honour contracts or pay a huge financial penalty.

 

[Plumpton eagle]

The whole mess is due to a player Mr Bosman going to the Court of human Rights who ruled that once a players contract was up the club could no longer hold their registration and sell him to another club. This effectively meant that the player himself would get the transfer (signing on) fee. This moved all the power to the players, leading to the ridiculous spiralling of wages, longer contracts, the demise of smaller clubs who relied on transfer fees etc. etc.

We may not like it but it seems fair to me that players have a right to make a decision at the end of a contract. They have met the requirements of the contract and if they refuse an offer of renewal they can move on. I don't see the problem in that.

If I was coming to the end of my contract and my employer offers me what I believe to be an unsatisfactory renewal, should I be forced to accept it? Most people would say "of course not". Should this employer also have the right and ability to stop me from finding employment elsewhere? Most people would say "of course not".

It seems a basic human right that employees should be able to better themselves as long as they meet the requirements of an existing contract. It is not just multi millionaire footballers that are affected by this. There will be many more, at the lower levels of the game, that are probably only just about getting by. This freedom of movement is probably even more important to them.

In football, managing this situation is of course far easier for the bigger clubs. This is where clubs like Palace are vulnerable and will always be likely to lose top performers towards or at the end of contracts. However, that is true in any industry and Palace have to factor that into signings, contracts and remuneration offered. Even though it is challenging for Palace and others, I can't see any government taking away this basic workers right.

 

[MarkA333]

We may not like it but it seems fair to me that players have a right to make a decision at the end of a contract. They have met the requirements of the contract and if they refuse an offer of renewal they can move on. I don't see the problem in that.

If I was coming to the end of my contract and my employer offers me what I believe to be an unsatisfactory renewal, should I be forced to accept it? Most people would say "of course not". Should this employer also have the right and ability to stop me from finding employment elsewhere? Most people would say "of course not".

It seems a basic human right that employees should be able to better themselves along as they meet the requirements of an existing contract. It is not just multi millionaire footballers that are affected by this. There will be many more, at the lower levels of the game, that are probably only just about getting by. This freedom of movement is probably even more important to them.

In football, managing this situation is of course far easier for the bigger clubs. This is where clubs like Palace are vulnerable and will always be likely to lose top performers towards or at the end of contracts. However, that is true in any industry and Palace have to factor that into signings, contracts and remuneration offered. Even though it is challenging for Palace and others, I can't see any government taking away this basic workers right

 

[MarkA333]

Sorry…are your missing the point?
We are talking about players under contract with years left.

 

[JHB]

This is true. However there should be no glass ceiling and there is. And players and agents should honour contracts or pay a huge financial penalty.

Unfortunately in most cases the player is honouring their contract. If they turn up to work and put in the effort then they are meeting the terms of their contract. Saying I want to move to a bigger club isn’t breaking the contract any more than me saying I fancy a better paid job somewhere else.

Clubs are perfectly free to say “it’s nice you want to move but you are under contract”.

If a player does break a contract then the club can fire them but that tends to be less commercially beneficial than selling them.

I’m not sure how else it would work. A contract is just an arrangement to provide labour in return for pay. If the labour isn’t provided then the pay isn’t either.

Does that leave a lot of power in hands of players? Yes for good ones in demand but then again without them players there is no football so it’s not a massive surprise really.

 

[JHB]

Sorry…are your missing the point?
We are talking about players under contract with years left.

I think the post was referring to the Bosman ruling which was about what rights players have once their contract has expired

 

[ASCPFC]

An issue is that football did indeed need to be more sustainable. Palace fans would know all about that.
However, current rules have skewed the picture greatly in favour of the sides who sell loads of merchandise. I'm surprised no one fakes merchandise sales to catch up, frankly. Villa could just get themselves to buy a few million kits. The Saudis could order every citizen to buy Newcastle merchandise.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I think the post was referring to the Bosman ruling which was about what rights players have once their contract has expired

But it still means the player(s) can leverage the end date to force a pay rise using the threat of leaving for nothing if it's not provided.

 

[JHB]

But it still means the player(s) can leverage the end date to force a pay rise using the threat of leaving for nothing if it's not provided.

So can any of us in our work if we are on a fixed term contract. Difference is there are thousands of people who can do my job so I have very little leverage. If there were only a handful of people who could do it then I would have the same power as a top footballer. It’s the same reason movie stars get paid lots of money

The issue isn’t with contract law it is with supply and demand.

 

[MarkA333]

I fundamentally disagree. If you sign a contract, like Sarr or Isak for example. It’s unacceptable to go on strike. And there should be a huge penalty for this.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

So can any of us in our work if we are on a fixed term contract. Difference is there are thousands of people who can do my job so I have very little leverage. If there were only a handful of people who could do it then I would have the same power as a top footballer. It’s the same reason movie stars get paid lots of money

The issue isn’t with contract law it is with supply and demand.

Yes, I appreciate that but as unfair as the situation was pre-Bosman it's gone too far the other way.
I don't have a solution - Chelsea's decision to offer longer contracts can backfire if the player doesn't work out.

 

[JHB]

I fundamentally disagree. If you sign a contract, like Sarr or Isak for example. It’s unacceptable to go on strike. And there should be a huge penalty for this.

I get it. I just am struggling to see what mechanic you would use for this given football is still governed by the same laws as other employment. How would it actually work?

I guess a club could put a penalty clause in the contract saying if you go on strike to force a move you need to pay the club a penalty. However, that is very unlikely to stand up to a legal challenge and there is zero chance of a player signing it.

I supposed you could change the law to let companies penalise workers genelally. However that would mean that if you didn’t turn up to work, not only could your company not pay you and sack you they could then fine you on top. What you then have isn’t just a contract, it is indentured labour and I can’t see that being a vote winner

 

[MarkA333]

It’s straightforward. The issue is related to greed and lack of gratitude.. When a player with his agent signs a contract, they were delighted with it. If they were injured or terrible, also delighted. If they were good, they try and strike to force a move. This is unacceptable.

 

[JHB]

It’s straightforward. The issue is related to greed and lack of gratitude.. When a player with his agent signs a contract, they were delighted with it. If they were injured or terrible, also delighted. If they were good, they try and strike to force a move. This is unacceptable.

I agree. I’m just not sure there is a legally enforceable solution to it

 

[Teddy Eagle]

I agree. I’m just not sure there is a legally enforceable solution to it

Could a rule be introduced whereby wages can't be increased until at least two years have elapsed? Or any rise means extending the contract? Purely guessing with no knowledge of the legal side.

 

[Stirlingsays]

If what's legal leads to crappier outcomes then the law needs to change.

 

[MarkA333]

I just feel the start of this season has highlighted these two major issues. Just want to be part of a movement to make it all better and fairer.

 

[JHB]

If what's legal leads to crappier outcomes then the law needs to change.

Be careful what you wish for. If the law changes in this regard do you think it is more likely to impact a millionaire footballer who is in demand or your average person doing a job?