The Football News Thread 2024/25

[Johnny75]

I really can’t see that happening. Clubs would lose money hand over fist if the power went to the players like that. I don’t think it would kill transfer fees as clubs will still be greedy, rather it would kill the market. We’d have never have landed Boly for instance, he didn’t want to be here in the first place so we wouldn’t have shelled out as we’d have no protection on the investment. And I can’t see agents being in line with it, they’d lose fortunes.

For the example of Diarra yes I get it, but not when it comes to the transfer market in general.

I think it will affect it, not eliminating fees completely but vastly reducing them.

There will be a collective bargaining agreement struck you would think in the same way American sports do.

We're basically catching up with the US, will only be a few years.

 

[Boozad]

I think it will affect it, not eliminating fees completely but vastly reducing them.

There will be a collective bargaining agreement struck you would think in the same way American sports do.

We're basically catching up with the US, will only be a few years.

Maybe, I'm skeptical though. The game's dying as it is and that would kill it stone dead.

 

[Squeak]

Interesting. A contract is a contract and no-one forced the player to sign it. In business you can be sued for breaking a contract and what is interesting to me is if the player forms a legal entity to trade as. The player then becomes an asset of the business rather than simply an individual player who might benefit form any new system a la Bosman.

Where it gets murky is where players name, image and likeness rights are owned. What then and what if the player has sold those rights?

We've all seen some shady deals, partic. in South America, where transfers are messed up because one entity is claiming they own a part of the player or his NIL.

I can certainly see where sensible clubs will limit their risk and vulnerability but ultimately, the really wealthy clubs won't care and will find a way to attract the top players regardless. All it is is money to those who own Man City and they can well afford to right off a few billion. Be interesting to see how this works.

 

[leedswolf]

This will really fuck Fosun's plan of making money from transfers.

https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/eu-top-court-says-fifa-player-transfer-rules-breach-eu-law-2024-10-04/

This is the Diarra case where the EU found against FIFA and the Belgian FA for restriction of trade by denying him a move and to be registered at a club.

This is going to make a very big dent in transfer fees and probably player wages. But it's really going to clip FIFA's wings and about time too

Presumably 'transfer windows' will have to be binned as well?

 

[Johnny75]

Presumably 'transfer windows' will have to be binned as well?

I wouldn't have thought so. Not registration periods which is the same for any sport that's one control not affected by the looks of things.

 

[Alan]

Maybe, I'm skeptical though. The game's dying as it is and that would kill it stone dead.

Lately I’ve been unable to shake the feeling that, at the level of the Prem, it’s quite dead already.

 

[Tredman]

You couldn’t really get a more clear case of ‘restraint of trade’ than not allowing an employee to move employer really.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Sport (and football in particular) will always have exceptions that run contrary to law.

I mean it cuts both ways if you want to treat players like any other employee. We could have sacked Doherty by now for failing to keep to the most basic of fitness standards and repeated dreadful performance (assuming we warned him not to play like a shitehawk). Just rip up almost two years of a contract because he's shite, and he doesn't try, and he doesn't learn. See how happy the PFA and the lawyers are with that.

The Lokomotiv/Diarra case is an outlier because when have you ever seen any Western European team do that - say mid-contract to a player that they have to take a wage cut, on the basis of on-field displays? It doesn't happen. Diarra was silly to go and join a club in a league where normal rules don't apply (of course Russian clubs are now more or less alienated from the rest of the world), just as much as anyone signing for a mid/low ranking Greek/Turkish side shouldn't be surprised if at some point they don't get paid properly, given there are dozens of examples of that happening.

 

[BillyDee]

You couldn’t really get a more clear case of ‘restraint of trade’ than not allowing an employee to move employer really.

Ex employee though wasn't he? Seems like a very obvious thing to not stop an out of contract player sign for another club, not sure it's such a big deal, unless I've missed something?

 

[Johnny75]

Ex employee though wasn't he? Seems like a very obvious thing to not stop an out of contract player sign for another club, not sure it's such a big deal, unless I've missed something?

It's certainly not great to withhold registration because an employer sacked somebody. That's clear restraint of trade.

The change would be how players are sacked/ leave a club.

 

[leedswolf]

It's certainly not great to withhold registration because an employer sacked somebody. That's clear restraint of trade.

The change would be how players are sacked/ leave a club.

Could it be feasible that the player holds the registration?

 

[Johnny75]

Could it be feasible that the player holds the registration?

Like a playing passport?

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The ruling does still set out that football players aren't normal employees. The only thing that might be extended is the provision for having reasonable cause to unilaterally terminate your own deal. At the minute it's only if the player doesn't get paid, or the club breaches the terms of the contract, or the nation is at war (and either sanctioned from play by FIFA or it's ruled unsafe to live/play there).

Still extremely unlikely that we'll hit a situation where you can just walk away whenever you fancy, be it because you don't like your manager or there's a better offer elsewhere (as you or I might do in a regular job and that would be fine). The EU recognise that can't happen with football and nothing has changed there.

 

[leedswolf]

Like a playing passport?

Yeah.

 

[Squeak]

The ruling does still set out that football players aren't normal employees. The only thing that might be extended is the provision for having reasonable cause to unilaterally terminate your own deal. At the minute it's only if the player doesn't get paid, or the club breaches the terms of the contract, or the nation is at war (and either sanctioned from play by FIFA or it's ruled unsafe to live/play there).

Still extremely unlikely that we'll hit a situation where you can just walk away whenever you fancy, be it because you don't like your manager or there's a better offer elsewhere (as you or I might do in a regular job and that would be fine). The EU recognise that can't happen with football and nothing has changed there.

Just put the player on gardening leave. Always find it interesting that in business, there are confidentiality or non compete clauses and yet, in football, folks move clubs and clearly have information they bring to the new employer seemingly without an issue.

 

[leedswolf]

Just put the player on gardening leave. Always find it interesting that in business, there are confidentiality or non compete clauses and yet, in football, folks move clubs and clearly have information they bring to the new employer seemingly without an issue.

In reality, they are difficult to enforce in business.

 

[Squeak]

In reality, they are difficult to enforce in business.

I always find it interesting to see which types of business try and enforce stuff like this. I know a couple of tv presenters and their contracts are absolutely specific that they cannot accept a position with a rival tv station for at least six months. All they do is present the news by reading from a teleprompter so I don't really understand that.

I have seen them enforced for some of the top folks in the communications and space industry and I guess some of that comes down to the cost of training folks in those spheres so you don't want to lose an employee you have invested a significant sum into. You could argue that there is significant investment in players but players, if they are smart, have other ways of forcing a move or making sure the employer is compensated.

 

[Sniffer]

The sponsorship case against the FA....

Manchester City: Verdict reached in Premier League APT legal case

The verdict is announced in Manchester City's legal case against the Premier League's associated party transaction rules.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[AndyWolves]

I think all it really means is club owners / shareholders can't offer interest free loans to themselves. Instead they'll need to apply interest at a fair market rate, this might impact psr positions for some clubs.

 

[Kenny]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1843232699546509479