Manchester Dhabi's profligacy could be a thing of the past....

[Chicog]

Transfer fees could go if Fifpro wins legal action against Fifa

• Global players’ union launches claim with European Commission
• Fifpro also seeks squad size limits and cap on agents’ fees

Transfer fees such as those for Gareth Bale and Cristiano Ronaldo, the two most expensive players in the world, could become a thing of the past. Photograph: Gonzalo Arroyo Moreno/Getty Images

Owen Gibson

@owen_g

Friday 18 September 2015 00.01 BST Last modified on Friday 18 September 201500.03 BST

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Google+

Shares

2,810

Comments287

Save for later

The union that represents footballers around the world will on Friday launch a landmark legal action against Fifa in the hope of outlawing the transfer system and fundamentally changing the professional game.

Having run out of patience with Fifa and Uefa following long-running negotiations over reforms to the transfer system to protect players better, Fifpro’s lawyers will electronically file a complaint in Brussels with the European Commission.

Fifpro wants to abolish transfer fees and make it easier for players to move between clubs while respecting contracts. It believes its members have less freedom of movement than other workers when a club is able to demand a fee for a footballer under contract. Its lawyers also plan to argue that the existing system is anti-competitive because it places disproportionate power in the hands of elite clubs who can afford to pay large transfer fees.

Government may impose levy on Premier League’s TV money – minister

Read more

Other Fifpro objectives include an end to the loan system, restrictions on squad sizes and the capping of payments to agents.

“Whatever happens, it is a historical moment not only for Fifpro but for professional football,” said Fifpro’s general secretary, Theo van Seggelen, who claims to represent 65,000 players across 65 countries. “We were responsible for Bosman, we were responsible for the declaration of objectives in 2001. We thought we had a good position then but we were tackled from behind.

“We’ve tried to solve this problem internally with Fifa and Uefa but I am 100% convinced that they have left us with no choice. I have been used to negotiating my whole career, with Fifpro and the Dutch union. But it has come to an end.”

Its lawyers believe it will result in the most seismic changes since the Bosman case to a transfer market they believe has become badly warped and no longer serves the best interests of players, fans or clubs. Moreover they will argue that it entrenches the dominance of the biggest clubs and damages the wider game.

“If we win this case and the European Commission declares it illegal, it will be like what happened after Bosman,” Van Seggelen told the Guardian, referring to the 1995 case that guaranteed freedom of movement for players when they reached the end of their contract.

“They have to change it. And if they don’t do it, there will be a declaration of objectives where they have to change it by a certain deadline.”

In the complaint to the Directorate General of EU Competition, Fifpro will argue that several opt-outs from European law agreed under a 2001 settlement have not been adhered to and are no longer in the public interest. They plan to argue that the transfer system is anti-competitive and also breaches European law on restraint of trade and freedom of movement.

The Commission could take six to 12 months to reach a decision and, if it rules in favour of Fifpro, lawyers estimate that it could take one to two years of horse trading beyond that to come up with a new set of rules.

Fifpro will argue that the transfer system breeds instability, with small clubs gambling on selling one or two star players to sustain themselves.

It will also point to new research from the economist Stefan Szymanski that shows that the argument that there is a “trickle down” effect from the transfer system from the biggest to the smallest clubs no longer holds water.

“The transfer system as it currently operates is intended to achieve a number of pro-competitive benefits in football markets by placing restraints on football players,” said Szymanski. “These restraints significantly impact the economic and social wellbeing of the players both in theory and in practice.

“Even if it were possible to justify these restraints because of the wider benefit to football, there is little evidence that these wider benefits have materialised. But in reality, it remains the case that there are better alternatives to achieving the stated policy goals, as observed by Carl Otto Lenz Advocate General at the European Court of Justice in the Bosman case 20 years ago.”

Szymanski’s 20-page analysis concludes: “As it currently operates, the transfer system sustains the dominance of the elite clubs by ensuring that they are the only ones with the financial muscle to afford the transfer fees payable for the very best players. Thus, as it currently operates, the transfers system is not only unfair to players, it also promotes the opposite of what was intended.”

FacebookTwitterPinterest

Manchester City’s squad size was cited as an example of the game’s imbalance by Fifpro’s Theo van Seggelen. Photograph: Paul Ellis /AFP/Getty Images

Van Seggelen said it was difficult to be specific about what the future might look like if transfer fees were abolished. But he argued the biggest clubs had nothing to fear.

“Without a transfer system, the best players will still play at the best clubs,” he said. “The contracts will be shorter. But that’s not enough. So we also have to come up with alternatives to be sure that we will not have an unintended effect. We also need stability – you can make the contracts one, two, three or four years. You can say it will be very difficult for a club or a player to breach their contract.”

One vision of the future would provide a “protected period” where neither club nor player could break their contract within the first two or three years (unless there were extenuating circumstances where they were not getting a game). Then the player would be able to buy out the remainder of his contract and switch clubs. It would also limit contracts to a maximum of, say, four years.

If the brave new world went hand in hand with other governance reforms – capping agents’ fees, limiting squad sizes, getting rid of the loan system – Van Seggelen argued it would not remove the advantage of the biggest clubs but would stop money flowing out of the game and produce more stability.

“If the agents are going to decide where a player is going to play because a club will give him €20m, that is a problem we have to tackle,” he said. “That is why we have to put restrictions on the intermediary fees. Otherwise you will create another problem. We have already thought about that.

“You have to think about squad size limits – you can’t have a Manchester City squad with 60 players – and we have to forbid the loan system. It’s logical. And get rid of the agent fees. Those are the points we have to think about.”

He also argued that wholesale reform of the transfer system to better protect players and create more stability should go hand in hand with measures to improve competitive balance in the game across Europe.

“It’s a packet of measures – you also have to look at the distribution of money. I look at all the countries,” he said. “In Slovenia football is small. We are not in a communist situation where everyone will become equal. The product from England is fantastic. They will still have the most money. That is not the problem.”

The impasse has come about because Fifpro claims the biggest clubs wanted to link new rules around guaranteeing payment of salaries – a major issue in some smaller leagues – to concessions elsewhere.

Fifpro has maintained that new rules on “overdue payables”, ensuring that players get paid on time, should be a given and not linked to the wider negotiation over the transfer system.

A 2012 Fifpro study across 12 countries showed that 42% of players did not receive their salaries on time. Van Seggelen insisted the biggest clubs in Europe had nothing to fear from getting rid of transfer fees and that smaller clubs had plenty to gain. He argued the only losers would be the agents and middle men taking money out of the game. Fifa’s own figures show that agents’ fees on international transfers rose to £155m in 2014.

“We are not the only ones complaining about the ridiculous system with the transfer window. There is the press, the fans,” he said. “Everybody understands that you want to end the season with the same team you start with. We are not saying ridiculous things.”

The Dutch secretary general, a former player, said the landmark case was a fitting way to mark the organisation’s 50th anniversary and insisted the widespread stereotype of footballers being concerned only with their own pay packet and position was unfair.

“Top players know where a player in the second division is coming from,” he said. “They know it could have been them. The solidarity of the players is unbelievable.

“I speak with players from all over the world, from Japan to Bolivia. The only difference between players is that one has a second-hand bike and the other has a Ferrari. All the players have to sacrifice to become a professional player.

“Our top players promote Fifpro, they are happy to be in our world XI, they are happy to be treated like everyone else. That is why the top players in Spain demanded that players in the third division were paid two years ago. We represent 60,000 players and we are united.”

[mrbojangles]

Go on then. I'll bite. Why did you name the topic thus Chigoc?

The article itself is interesting but the title that you gave it is pure baiting.

[smokie36]

All will just move to wages...no huge drama.

[Chicog]

Go on then. I'll bite. Why did you name the topic thus Chigoc?

The article itself is interesting but the title that you gave it is pure baiting.

You obviously didn't read it then MrBo.

Manchester City’s squad size was cited as an example of the game’s imbalance by Fifpro’s Theo van Seggelen.

[mrbojangles]

Go on then. I'll bite. Why did you name the topic thus Chigoc?

The article itself is interesting but the title that you gave it is pure baiting.

You obviously didn't read it then MrBo.

Manchester City’s squad size was cited as an example of the game’s imbalance by Fifpro’s Theo van Seggelen.

But I did read it Chic.

The first two names mentioned in the article were:-

Transfer fees such as those for Gareth Bale and Cristiano Ronaldo, the two most expensive players in the world, could become a thing of the past.

Nothing to do with City

And then they mentioned, as you say, City's size of the squad, linking it to players out on loan and the "inbalance". Well the facts are:-

Chelsea have a league-high 33 players out on loan

Liverpool (16),

Manchester City (13)

Arsenal (12)

Source:- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/11843969/Revealed-159-Premier-League-players-are-currently-on-loan-in-15-different-countries.html

So City are mentioned once in an article as an example, when in fact it is referring to every big name team (of which Arsenal are just as guilty) but you decide to name the topic Manchester Dhabi, as if it only concerns us.

I stand by what I said originally and you are just baiting City and continue your bias instead of a balanced view.

[smokie36]

Lol its not City he hates...its sand.

[mrbojangles]

Lol its not City he hates...its sand.

Maybe both smokes

Although Chiccy didn't post the link, I found it and the actual headline in the article is:- http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/18/fifpro-transfer-fees-could-go-fifa-brussels#comments

Transfer fees could go if Fifpro wins legal action against Fifa

but Chiccy feels he has licence to plagiarise others work and label it with his own spin.

[smokie36]

OK he's jealous too...I'm just disappointed not to see Messi every week.

Sort it.

[Chicog]

Plagiarize? It has the author's name on it you fanny. And he specifically mentioned your club. Is my title incorrect?

[mrbojangles]

Plagiarize? It has the author's name on it you fanny. And he specifically mentioned your club. Is my title incorrect?

Of course the title is incorrect. You copied and pasted an article but changed the title for your own spin. I had to go searching for the title which I gave cos you didn't reference it.

The author only mentioned City as an example but was referring to many clubs who they are pointing their fingers at. The buffoon didn't even mention Chelsea who have 33 players out on loan. More than double that of Liverpool, City and your club. Look at the facts I pointed out earlier and discuss those shall we?

On second thoughts. Never mind cos you don't like discussing facts and I'm gonna watch England V Fiji

[Chicog]

The main point surely is that all those transfer fees could mean jack s---

[carmine]

I think this thread should simply have been entitled "For Bredbury"

[oldgit]

I think fifpro have been casting envious looks at the way the NFL do things. No transfer fees and ridiculously high wages for the players.

[Chicog]

I think fifpro have been casting envious looks at the way the NFL do things. No transfer fees and ridiculously high wages for the players.

And a Salary cap and a Draft?

Now that would shake things up.

[MrBrilliant]

"Fifpro" sounds like one of them games fat, wheezy, speccy kids play instead of actually going out and kicking a ball around....

[Chicog]

Come on Mr Bo and Mr Bred, you're always telling me that your club are fighting for the little guys.

How would you feel about a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft?

It's a great leveller in the NFL.

[mrbojangles]

I'm not playing with you today Chiccy

[Chicog]

It's a simple question.

[Bredbury Blue]

I virtually only ever go on the Man City forum. This past weekend I went on the arsenal and chelsea forums at the goading of Evan Stevens. I was just searching the forum to see if I could find out which League Cup game will be on ch3 or ch7 tomorrow and by chance I spotted this forum. Straight away I knew Chicog would be behind it.

Chicog you're out of order with the naming of this forum. Wouldn't mind so much if you'd been an adult and named it 'Man City...' even though the article you posted, as pointed out by MrBJ, is relevant to all teams.

[Bredbury Blue]

Come on Mr Bo and Mr Bred, you're always telling me that your club are fighting for the little guys.

How would you feel about a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft?

It's a great leveller in the NFL.

So Chicog, is that what you are suggesting be implemented, "a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft"? If so, why? You not happy with the current system of buying and selling players which has part and parcel of our national game since 1893?

[Bredbury Blue]

I request a Moderator change the current title of this topic intended to flame Man City fans to:

'Football's profligacy could be a thing of the past'

[Chicog]

I request that you just admit your rich sheikh has bought players like a kid in a sweet shop since he took over, without any care for Financial Fair Play or any other norms.

When you're a multibillionaire you can do that can't you.

In answer to your question:

So Chicog, is that what you are suggesting be implemented, "a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft"? If so, why? You not happy with the current system of buying and selling players which has part and parcel of our national game since 1893?

The FIFPro challenge involves, among other things, the abolition of transfer fees.

I don't see how this can be good for the players, because if the players are going to be in a position to ignore contracts, then I'm fairly certain the clubs will do likewise.

I raised the issue of the American system because a Salary cap would be good for football, and the big clubs could let the money dribble down to the smaller clubs to develop players.

The draft is an interesting concept too, because clubs would then be able to not only afford better players, but could choose to trade them for a profit and develop their own players with the proceeds.

It makes no difference whether or not I agree with the transfer system, the bottom line is that once Bosman was approved, this has been a ticking time bomb ever since.

How much longer can the EU keep promoting a system which is clearly in violation of general European employment law?

The downside is that you end up with "players for rent", or maybe with clubs renting players from outside the EU in order to avoid giving them European contracts.

I think the whole thing is dripping with downsides, but you have to ask how far FIFPro are prepared to go to bring the house down.

[jellydog]

https://youtu.be/lzQ8GDBA8Is?t=19

[Bredbury Blue]

I request that you just admit your rich sheikh has bought players like a kid in a sweet shop since he took over, without any care for Financial Fair Play or any other norms.

When you're a multibillionaire you can do that can't you.

In answer to your question:

So Chicog, is that what you are suggesting be implemented, "a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft"? If so, why? You not happy with the current system of buying and selling players which has part and parcel of our national game since 1893?

The FIFPro challenge involves, among other things, the abolition of transfer fees.

I don't see how this can be good for the players, because if the players are going to be in a position to ignore contracts, then I'm fairly certain the clubs will do likewise.

I raised the issue of the American system because a Salary cap would be good for football, and the big clubs could let the money dribble down to the smaller clubs to develop players.

The draft is an interesting concept too, because clubs would then be able to not only afford better players, but could choose to trade them for a profit and develop their own players with the proceeds.

It makes no difference whether or not I agree with the transfer system, the bottom line is that once Bosman was approved, this has been a ticking time bomb ever since.

How much longer can the EU keep promoting a system which is clearly in violation of general European employment law?

The downside is that you end up with "players for rent", or maybe with clubs renting players from outside the EU in order to avoid giving them European contracts.

I think the whole thing is dripping with downsides, but you have to ask how far FIFPro are prepared to go to bring the house down.

Your first paragraph Chicog further convinces me that you're obsessed with Man City's current standing and Sheikh Mansour in particular; it isn't healthy for you. What have Man City/Sheikh Mansour done which is any different to other wealthy clubs over the years. Nothing.

[Chicog]

I request that you just admit your rich sheikh has bought players like a kid in a sweet shop since he took over, without any care for Financial Fair Play or any other norms.

When you're a multibillionaire you can do that can't you.

In answer to your question:

So Chicog, is that what you are suggesting be implemented, "a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft"? If so, why? You not happy with the current system of buying and selling players which has part and parcel of our national game since 1893?

The FIFPro challenge involves, among other things, the abolition of transfer fees.

I don't see how this can be good for the players, because if the players are going to be in a position to ignore contracts, then I'm fairly certain the clubs will do likewise.

I raised the issue of the American system because a Salary cap would be good for football, and the big clubs could let the money dribble down to the smaller clubs to develop players.

The draft is an interesting concept too, because clubs would then be able to not only afford better players, but could choose to trade them for a profit and develop their own players with the proceeds.

It makes no difference whether or not I agree with the transfer system, the bottom line is that once Bosman was approved, this has been a ticking time bomb ever since.

How much longer can the EU keep promoting a system which is clearly in violation of general European employment law?

The downside is that you end up with "players for rent", or maybe with clubs renting players from outside the EU in order to avoid giving them European contracts.

I think the whole thing is dripping with downsides, but you have to ask how far FIFPro are prepared to go to bring the house down.

Your first paragraph Chicog further convinces me that you're obsessed with Man City's current standing and Sheikh Mansour in particular; it isn't healthy for you. What have Man City/Sheikh Mansour done which is any different to other wealthy clubs over the years. Nothing.

Since you've now answered your own question, what about mine?

What do you think of the FIFPro action?

[smokie36]

I'll answer this.

Clubs will act to protect their own interests and offer contracts which you or I might enter into with a couple of months notice required by either party.

No more freeloading by players on long deals but likely astronomical wages....but they have that already.

The big winners will be insurance companies as players will have to pay those premiums themselves without the clubs protection of long contracts.

Money filtering through to the small clubs will dry up and it will mostly be a disaster for the game.

[mrbojangles]

And the world is nigh !!

[Bredbury Blue]

I request that you just admit your rich sheikh has bought players like a kid in a sweet shop since he took over, without any care for Financial Fair Play or any other norms.

When you're a multibillionaire you can do that can't you.

In answer to your question:

So Chicog, is that what you are suggesting be implemented, "a salary cap, no transfer fees and a draft"? If so, why? You not happy with the current system of buying and selling players which has part and parcel of our national game since 1893?

The FIFPro challenge involves, among other things, the abolition of transfer fees.

I don't see how this can be good for the players, because if the players are going to be in a position to ignore contracts, then I'm fairly certain the clubs will do likewise.

I raised the issue of the American system because a Salary cap would be good for football, and the big clubs could let the money dribble down to the smaller clubs to develop players.

The draft is an interesting concept too, because clubs would then be able to not only afford better players, but could choose to trade them for a profit and develop their own players with the proceeds.

It makes no difference whether or not I agree with the transfer system, the bottom line is that once Bosman was approved, this has been a ticking time bomb ever since.

How much longer can the EU keep promoting a system which is clearly in violation of general European employment law?

The downside is that you end up with "players for rent", or maybe with clubs renting players from outside the EU in order to avoid giving them European contracts.

I think the whole thing is dripping with downsides, but you have to ask how far FIFPro are prepared to go to bring the house down.

Your first paragraph Chicog further convinces me that you're obsessed with Man City's current standing and Sheikh Mansour in particular; it isn't healthy for you. What have Man City/Sheikh Mansour done which is any different to other wealthy clubs over the years. Nothing.

Since you've now answered your own question, what about mine?

What do you think of the FIFPro action?

Answer. As a football fan I'm ok with the current system of buying and selling players which has been part and parcel of our national game since 1893.

[Chicog]

But it sounds like that might be going down the toilet.

[Bredbury Blue]

But it sounds like that might be going down the toilet.

Well if it does, it does.