'%20x='0'%20y='0'%20height='100%25'%20width='100%25'%20%0A%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20xlink%3Ahref=''%3E%3C/image%3E%3C/svg%3E)
Other landmark cases
The next major step in the evolution of the football transfer system was the Bosman ruling. Jean-Marc Bosman played for RFC Liège in the Belgian league. Bosman’s contract expired in 1990 and he sought a move to Dunkerque, a team in France. Dunkerque were unwilling to meet the transfer fee demanded by Liège (which was set by Belgium’s player-valuation system at the time), and the move fell through.
In the meantime, Bosman's wages were reduced by 75% as he was no longer a first-team player. Bosman felt that he had been effectively blacklisted and took his case to the European Court of Justice, citing FIFA's rules regarding football and claimed that he was being restrained in his freedom to trade.
The court held that the existing system violated the provisions of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, placing an unfair encumbrance on the right to free movement of workers. The effect of the Bosman ruling was that all EU players were given the right to a free transfer at the end of their contracts (provided they were moving from one EU-based club to another).
It also allowed for players to negotiate deals with other clubs in the last six months of their contract, and the move would be completed after expiry of the existing contract as a free transfer. The other major implication of this ruling was that quotas regarding team composition could not be imposed on EU nationals, as that would also violate the EU Treaty. The Bosman ruling also indirectly led to the establishment of the January transfer window.
The next major ruling was the Webster ruling, which basically allowed for players who signed a contract before the age of 28 to buy themselves out of the contract three years after the deal was signed. If it was signed after the player was 28, the time limit was reduced to two years. This ruling allowed players to simply pay off the money owed to them by the club, and they could unilaterally terminate the contract.
This ruling was heavily criticized by the European Club Organization, FIFA, and UEFA. However, the impact of this judgement was greatly reduced after the Matuzalem ruling, which basically stated that a player wishing to unilaterally terminate his contract must pay a “market valuation” of himself to the selling club if they wished to terminate their contract early.
FIFPro’s demands and how they differ from the current system
FIFPro’s major gripe with the current system is that they feel that there is too much power vested in the clubs (particularly after Matuzalem), and that the current transfer system (according to FIFPro President Phillippe Piat) “fails 99% of players around the world, it fails football as an industry and it fails the world’s most beloved game. Football’s governing bodies, clubs and leagues claim the transfer system is necessary to ensure competitive balance, whereby in fact it creates a spiral of economic and sporting imbalance, which only benefits the richest 1% of clubs and player agents.”
FIFPro also blame many issues of the modern game (such as the trafficking of underage players and restrictive or exploitative third-party ownership agreements) on the existing transfer system. Under the current system, a player may buy their contract out via the method described above. However, if a player wishes to terminate their contract due to non-payment of wages, the current system does indeed seem harsh.
Currently, a player cannot cancel their contract until 90 days of non-payment occurred. After this time period, they must approach FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber. More than 90% of these matters are decided in favour of the player, but with more than 4,000 such cases annually, the decision comes months later, and often results in severe damage to the player’s career.
If a player is found guilty of a breach of contract however, they are banned from playing for 120 days and must compensate the club to the tune of their "market value". FIFPro considers this (and transfer fees) to be a tax on employment, which more or less implies that the existing system as a whole is a restraint of trade that would be illegal in any other industry in the EU.
Essentially saying that they would want the whole existing “transfer fee system” to be abolished because they call it “anti-competitive”. Arguing, it has a restrictive effect on players that would not be tolerated in any other European industry.
FIFPro are seeking four major changes to the existing system, which are as follows:
- Any player not paid by their club for more than 30 days can terminate their contract providing they have given the club at least 10 days' written notice;
- If a contract is terminated by the club without just cause or by the player for non-payment, the player should be compensated by having the contract paid out by the club;
- Any player without a contract after the process above should be able to find work immediately, without having to wait for a transfer window to open;
- These reforms should apply domestically and internationally.
Naturally, the European Clubs Association (ECA) and the Association of European Professional Football Leagues (EPFL) have refused to discuss what they consider a further reduction of their contractual rights and another concession to "player power". ECA chairman Karl-Heinz Rummenigge cited the example of the Bosman Ruling in 1995 when saying that "sometimes decisions made by courts are not for the good of the game".
However, the Bosman ruling has been uniformly welcomed by players, who were consequently given greater control over their career paths. In an industry where the players have very short careers in which they must maximize their earning potential, the freedom to choose the career path most beneficial to them is vital. Considering the way that professional footballers have been treated by clubs in the past, it is difficult to argue that more player power is a bad thing.
