|
 |   |
|
EVENTS Fantasy Central Inside Game Multimedia Central Statitudes Your Turn Message Boards Email Newsletters Golf Guide Cities Work in Sports
CNNSI.com GROUP
COMMERCE
|  |
Expect a tough fight Soccer's battle with the EU could get very ugly
Strap yourself in. It's going to be a bumpy ride. The world of soccer, indeed, all organized team sports in Europe, is headed for a frontal collision with the European Union and it won't be pretty. In fact, odds are, it will be the biggest change to hit the sport at professional level since somebody laid down the laws of the game. The bone of contention is the transfer system. Currently, players sign contracts with clubs and their registration (essentially a "license to play") is held by the club until the contract expires or the player is sold. When a contract expires, the player can move to any other club for free. Technically, he reacquires his registration and can then hand it over to a new team when he signs a new contract. Most players however are actually bought and sold. In most cases (barring a few exceptions such as buy-out clauses and release clauses) the market determines how much a player will cost. There is no minimum and no limit beyond what the market can bear. This system has been in place for nearly a hundred years and it has served the sport well. The game is booming, it's awash with money, it remains the only truly global team sport. Enter the European Union, a political and economic association with fifteen member states (and a further twelve on the waiting list to join). Among other things, the EU guarantees certain rights to workers. These rights include what is known as "mobility of labor", which means an EU citizen has a right to seek and gain employment in any member state. Already this has made soccer and politics clash. In 1996, the EU ruled that limits on the number of foreigners employed by a club were illegal and that a player whose contract had expired could move to another club for free (before that, out-of-contract players who wished to find a new club had to find someone to pay their UEFA parameter, a fee derived based on wages, age and international experience).
Just after this historic ruling (the so-called Bosman ruling), the European Commission contacted UEFA and FIFA. It warned them that the current transfer system was in violation of EU employment law and asked them to rectify the matter. That was four years ago and, to be fair, UEFA and FIFA did little about it. I guess they figured the European Commission had more important things to worry about and wasn't going to enforce its laws. They were wrong. Last month the EU reminded the game's governing bodies that they needed to step in to line. If they did not come up with a solution by September 20, the EU would go to court (and, most probably, win). FIFA freaked out. It realized the European Commission was serious. And they also realized they had little option but to give in. They suggested a compromise, which is just a notch above total surrender. Under FIFA's proposal, players under the age of 18 would not be able to move to clubs in other countries. Players between the age of 18 and 24 could be transferred for some kind of fee set not by the market but by a formula derived by age, years remaining on their contract and wages (essentially another version of the old parameters). Most importantly, any player over the age of 24 would be placed on a one-year rolling contract. At the end of each year, he would be allowed to move for free, without a transfer fee being paid. This would rock the game to its foundations. If it had been in place this summer, Real Madrid could have signed Luis Figo for free, rather than shelling out US$55 million. Bear in mind that this is just FIFAšs compromise solution. The European Commission could well turn it down and ask for even greater freedom for players. What will this do to the game? Where to begin? For starters, it is a huge blow to smaller clubs who survive by developing young players and selling them on at a profit. One Premiership chairman was quoted as saying: "Why should we spend US$2.5 million a year on a youth academy if we can lose our players at any time?" It also means that there could well be a huge turnover in the top clubs every season. Anybody who has a career year can just ask for more money. What's more, he'll probably get it. Each summer will be a morass of contract negotiations as, conceivably, every single player on a club's books will have to renegotiate. Stability will be a thing of the past, as will the concept of "building for the future." Missed out on that Champions League spot? Heck, just fire everybody and bring in a new cast of characters. Don't waste your time with youngsters, because they can walk at any time. The big winners, at first glance, are the players and their agents. The money will still flow, but instead of going from club to club (and trickling down to the lower divisions), it will just go from club to player (and agent). But even then, things aren't going to be so rosy for all players. A guy who gets injured or has a bad stretch could well find himself fired. Right now, contracts afford a modicum of security to what is, after all, a very short career. The European Commission would argue that because footballers are workers they should be treated exactly the same as mechanics, secretaries and the guy who stocks the shelves at your local supermarket. That argument is not only simplistic, it's foolish. You can't compare somebody with a twelve year career to someone whose career spans four decades. Furthermore, a footballer's development is unique. From the time a player first joins a club (usually at the age of fifteen) to the time he is twenty, he generally contributes very little. Only then does he begin to develop and give something back. Clubs know this, which is why they accept that only a small percentage of youth players ever make the grade. Also, from an economic perspective, footballers aren't just laborers, they are, at the same time, labor and capital. In that sense, they are assets and should be treated as such. They can't be replaced as easily as the guy who sits in a toll booth or a waiter in a restaurant. With a modicum of training, I could probably do both jobs satisfactorily. But alas, no matter how hard I train, I'll never be able to replace a Luis Figo or Zinedine Zidane (I realized this a long time ago). What is most galling about this is that nobody asked for the EU to intervene and the EU did not bother consulting anybody. The EU claims to protect workers and their rights, but it didn't take the time to ask footballers what they thought or if there was a need to intervene. It claims to favor the free market, but it is abolishing one of the few true free markets in Europe. They view it as a restricted labor market which needs to be freed. In reality, footballers aren't laborers, they are assets, and, as such can be traded. "I find it scandalous that players are being used as objects of speculation, bought and sold like commodities," says Viviane Reding, the EU's Sports Commissioner. Well, I, for one, find it scandalous that the EU's Sports Commissioner could be so ignorant of the history, tradition and reality of the world's most popular sport. This isn't about harmonization, ensuring the whole continent is on the same page. The transfer system is almost a hundred years old and it is an intrinsic part of the sport. It is part of footballng culture and it is working fine. Not only is there no need to fix it, the EU's repairs could do serious damage. The EU's final argument, that sports is a business and needs to abide by business rules, is flawed as well. Sports is not just a business, itšs a hybrid, just like academia, the military, the media and the arts. Yes, clubs like Manchester United are full-blooded listed companies. But the vast majority, from Real Madrid to Carrarese, from Helsingborgs to Nice, aren't. They have a different raison d'etre and abide by different rules. EU labor laws are full of exceptions which take these differences into account in other fields, why not sports? The truth is that Europe's top leagues represent a model integrated labor market. If anything, the European Commission should be trying to emulate, not disparage, what soccer has built. That's why the world of soccer is rebelling. Strike action has been suggested in Spain, Italy, England and elsewhere. It may be futile, but, for the good of the game, soccer should not go down without a fight. Perhaps if enough people come together the European Commission will see the folly of its ways and that, apart from the odd bureaucrat, nobody is backing them. London-based Gabriele Marcotti writes a weekly column on international soccer for CNNSI.com.
| |||||||||||||||||||||
