Should player sales just be banned?

Neil3030

I've often thought this would be an interesting experiment: ban teams buying and selling players and impose a rule that they can only sign free agents or trade players for players.

So if Man City or Real Madrid want a player, they can't simply dip into their owners' pockets straight away; they either wait for his contract to expire and sign him up (like in a lot of US Sports) or offer players in exchange.

I can't help but feel this would quickly solve a lot of the problems in football. Players would honour their contracts more. Plus clubs would be incentivised to develop talent, not merely hoover it up whenever they feel. All around, does everyone win?

smokedeels

That's the kind of thinking that will get you sent to the Island.

I-Shot-Jr

It probably would help the game, the advantage of your proposal being that the top four would no longer dominate the premiership and some smaller teams would have a fighting chance if given the opportunity to sign some decent players that they would normally not be able to afford. The same goes for the likes of La Liga, Serie A etc where the same few teams have traditionally dominated.

Helix

too many smaller clubs rely on player sales to stay afloat

doc_17

Maybe one consequence of that would be players only signing short term deals and getting even more extraordinary wages than they do at present.

It's difficult to compare it to American Sports....The draft system seems to make things a bit fairer there whereas in Europe it's a case of who spends (generally) wins.

And if anything FFF will make it even more unfair. Same old teams competing all the time

Esse85

It would drive players wages sky high, there already earning silly money.

flahavaj

Helix wrote: »

too many smaller clubs rely on player sales to stay afloat

If a club that produces lots of talented players got to keep them all they'd probably have much more success and get the financial benefits that go along with it. Imagine if West Ham had been able to keep all the talent they produced in the last decade?:eek:

Paleface

I think if they abolished transfer fees and introduced salary caps it would put everyone on a much level playing field.

Players could still sign a contract for any club they want but their decisions would be down more to footballing reasons as opposed to money because of the cap on the wages.

Once a player is contracted the same Bosman rules apply in regard to when they can start talking to other clubs if they want to move on.

It would probably see players sign much shorter contracts than they do now.

PHB

It would result in all top players looking for short contracts. It would result in clubs trying to over-contract their young players when they are vulnerable. Talented kids would be given 5 year contracts at 18, because the risk is too great.

Also, fundamentally, it's a restriction on trade. It's unfair on the players.

FFP rules will solve an awful lot of problems relating to football now. Top clubs won't be able to offer anywhere near as much on wages, which will defo play a role in keeping players at other clubs. It will also allow other clubs to develop sustanably, as they won't be competing against people who are operating outside market rules. As such, I think FFP will be the saviour of football

flahavaj

PHB wrote: »

FFP rules will solve an awful lot of problems relating to football now. Top clubs won't be able to offer anywhere near as much on wages, which will defo play a role in keeping players at other clubs. It will also allow other clubs to develop sustanably, as they won't be competing against people who are operating outside market rules. As such, I think FFP will be the saviour of football

I just hope they follow through on it properly and have the balls to enforce the penalties they say they will for non-compliers.

Fr Tod Umptious

They do it all the time in US sports.

However in US sports there is no relegation or promotion, so you do not have lower tier teams selling to higher level teams for big money as you do in Europe.

doc_17

Doesn't financial fair play mean that a club has to live within their means? i.e. if you are a rich club you can spend lots of money and if you are a poor club then you can't? So nothing really will change. Bit like the GAA....big counties will always do well, small counties never win anything as they have to live within their means (not enough players).

Neil3030

Some interesting ponts.

Re: Small clubs relying on selling talent.

This is true, however they would also survive by developing talent, keeping said developed talent for 2-3 more seasons than the present system and eventually progressing up the ladder to higher earning leagues/TV deals. Also, they could trade their big stars and strengthen several areas.

Re: Good players would only sign short term deals.

Leagues could simply impose minimum deals of, say, 2 years or something

Re: Young players could be duped into long term deals.

As above, why not impose max length contracts for players below a certain age. Say no longer than 4 years if player under 21.

_blank_

EU Law would rule out your points on the length of contract.

Ebbs

Basically how the LoI already operates. Yet still a huge gulf in class between top and bottom.

So no, it wouldnt work. Player fees have little to do with anything anymore, especially with flair play rules being introduced.

Its all about revenue.

pickarooney

Does anyone have enough legal knowledge to tell me if the rules against restriction of trade etc. apply to actually appearing in competitive football matches?

While e.g. Chelsea F.C. as a company could hire 2000 employees the F.A. can still impose their own rules as to how many of them can play in a season (and obviously the rules of football limit the number of employees who can be on the pitch at any one time). These rules, as far as I can gather, don't prevent the players from earning their wages as subs, squad players or permanently injured crocks.

So can the various football associations not technically impose whatever rules they like while still not restricting the players' trade as they're still being paid while not playing?

I no longer know exactly what I was trying to ask, sorrry...

amacachi

pickarooney wrote: »

Does anyone have enough legal knowledge to tell me if the rules against restriction of trade etc. apply to actually appearing in competitive football matches?

While e.g. Chelsea F.C. as a company could hire 2000 employees the F.A. can still impose their own rules as to how many of them can play in a season (and obviously the rules of football limit the number of employees who can be on the pitch at any one time). These rules, as far as I can gather, don't prevent the players from earning their wages as subs, squad players or permanently injured crocks.

So can the various football associations not technically impose whatever rules they like while still not restricting the players' trade as they're still being paid while not playing?

I no longer know exactly what I was trying to ask, sorrry...

Yeah I'm not sure what you were trying to ask. :pac: Legally (outside of the specifics of their contracts) it doesn't matter if someone's a footballer or a programme seller, everything has to comply with the law. Teams still face issues with work visas for players from outside the EU if they can't "show" that that player has something that couldn't be found in a potential employee from within Europe for example, so it seems employment law applies even if there's an extra layer of rubbish on top of it.

Comparisons with US sport are unfair since the top leagues are monopolies and the NFL is granted that position with some weak restrictions while the players are unionised.

Paleface

Football in its current financial format is a bubble waiting to burst.

It will only be clearer once this happens where the future of transfer fees and salaries lie.

#15

American leagues don't have to adhere to some laws on restriction of trade because they have collective bargaining agreements with the players. I don't think the EU has similar opt-outs.

It's a good idea in theory OP, but it would require a fundamental change in the structure of the sport.

Chucky the tree

Smaller clubs would have less interest in developing young player. Look at Southampton, Walcott would have left for a free, Alexde Chamberlain would also very likely refuse to sign a contract and would simply let it run down and leave on a free. Trading wouldn't always work, how many Arsenal players would be happy to be traded to Southampton? Probably none.

Nfl only has 16 teams, 30 in NBA and 30 major league teams, there are hundreds of thousands of soccer lcubs world wide. How many european players would be happy to get traded to south america? It would just never work well.

Raze_them_all

Salary caps wouldn't work, If you think some football contracts are silly check out some of america's.

Alex Rodreguez-10 year contract-275,000,000, average a year 27.5million

in 2003 Michael Vick signed a 10 year 130million dollar contract.
The same guy who went to jail for running dog fights iirc
last year Kobe Brynts salary alone was worth just under 25 million.



There may be pay caps but some players can bleed you dry

event

flahavaj wrote: »

If a club that produces lots of talented players got to keep them all they'd probably have much more success and get the financial benefits that go along with it. Imagine if West Ham had been able to keep all the talent they produced in the last decade?:eek:

or more than likely with big clubs investing a massive amount in youth scouting, cole, carrick, rio etc would have signed for other clubs when they were 10

craggles

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Nfl only has 16 teams.

32.

Beefy78

Neil3030 wrote: »

Re: Small clubs relying on selling talent.

This is true, however they would also survive by developing talent, keeping said developed talent for 2-3 more seasons than the present system and eventually progressing up the ladder to higher earning leagues/TV deals. Also, they could trade their big stars and strengthen several areas.

They can't all progress up the ladder though. There has to be teams at the bottom.

Your plan would send half the Clubs in England (and other countries) to the wall within three years.

Chardee MacDennis

Raze_them_all wrote: »

Salary caps wouldn't work, If you think some football contracts are silly check out some of america's.

Alex Rodreguez-10 year contract-275,000,000, average a year 27.5million

in 2003 Michael Vick signed a 10 year 130million dollar contract.
The same guy who went to jail for running dog fights iirc
last year Kobe Brynts salary alone was worth just under 25 million.



There may be pay caps but some players can bleed you dry

only about 50-60% of that money is guaranteed, meaning they have to be MVP, win the Superbowl and rack up some serious individual stats to get all that money (in the NFL anyway)....

Raze_them_all

BastardPrince wrote: »

only about 50-60% of that money is guaranteed, meaning they have to be MVP, win the Superbowl and rack up some serious individual stats to get all that money (in the NFL anyway)....

You don't think that if the owners try bring in salary caps players will want the same perks??

Imagine the stuff chelsea,man u etc would have to pay for.

Keep this many clean sheets, score this many goals, win premiership, win champions league.

LuckyLloyd

Just implement a global salary cap, problems solved.

uprooted tradition

Legally, this could never happen, but I am sure that isn't the point of the thread anyway.

I'm never really sure when people make suggestions like this and salary caps what problem they are trying to solve.

Clubs already have the incentive to develop talent, the cost of bringing players in means that the first option should be to try and bring players through but if they are not good enough that is that. For all clubs the academy has two aims, to develop players for the first team, and to develop players to sell to other clubs so at least the academy pays for itself. Taking the option to sell these players away from these teams will cause them more damage. It is easy to use the example of West Ham as a team that would have developed into a potentially huge club by forcing them to keep their best players but West Ham have an exceptional record in this regard. With most other smaller clubs the top players only come through the ranks every now and again and they do rely on being able to sell them.

Imagine the situation where someone is out of contract and free to sign for whoever he likes. Who does he choose? Whoever gives him the biggest signing on bonus, the club he leaves gets nothing the players get more and more and more money leaves the game and the player is free again to leave at the end of that contract. I agree it would mean players would have to have a lot more honour for their contracts, but is that really such a big problem that such a radical change would need to be brought in? At least with the transfer market, money does stay within the game. Take Chelsea paying 50M for Torres, that is 50M that "rested in Liverpools accounts for a short time, before going to Newcastle and Ajax which in turn allowed them to buy players (or not if they decide so).

What is wrong with the idea that if you take more money in you can spend more wherever you decide to spend it? Have Man United not earned the right to outbid some other teams for players with the amount of money they take in? The money they take in from commercial activities is higher than everyone elses, so what? They are in that position because of the success they have had over time. They didn't overreach themselves looking for success in the first place and when they got the success they have a right to try maintain it. Seems like a lot of these potential rule changes are about denying clubs Shouldn't they be allowed to reap the riches and try to maintain that success? Were Spurs really that bothered that they lost Berbatov (for instance) to them for 30M?

Imagine a club that is near the bottom of the table at Christmas, shouldn't they at least have the right to try and sign a player to turn their fortunes around? It is up to them to make the decision and take the benefits or consequences.

If a club decides to reach for the stars, what is wrong with that? If they happen to fall like Leeds, that is just what happens due to bad business decisions and the league table punishes them. Man United have to get in a new manager in a couple of years, they could make the wrong decision, give a new manager a lot of money and fall apart. That is the nature of the game. It happened to United before, it happened to Liverpool and someday it will happen to United again. There is no need to come up with rules to stop their domination and it certainly isn't fair to do so.

Now take the examples of Chelsea, Man City etc... Money doesn't necessarily breed success. Chelsea dont win things every year, they still haven't won the champions league and possibly because of this they will always be a club on the verge of self destruction while Roman is there. There is nothing yet to suggest that Man City will go straight in to dominate the league.