Well, since Max's original topic about Chelski and their transfer ban was deleted in the server change, I'm just going to make another post and assume everyone knows what I'm talking about.

So, now we have the obvious outcome of such silly things as FIFA imposing transfer bans when they really have no legal grounds to do so under British Employment law etc. which is that every small club is going to whine about the fact that over the last hundred years they've not managed to attract some billionaires to take over their club because they don't have enough supporters to justify it.

As you can see in the linked story, Crewe Alexandra have reported Liverpool because, in chronological order:

• Liverpool make an offer for a Crewe teenager which Crewe reject out of hand, rather than say, negotiating
• The player in question then realises he can do better than play for Crewe Alexandra
• The player in question doesn't then sign a contract with Crewe Alexandra
• Crewe believe it's Liverpool's fault that they're shit

As demonstrated by numerous prima donna's throughout footballing history and most recently with Christiano Ronaldo or Joleon Lescott, when a player makes up their mind that they won't sign a contract, they can't be forced to do so. They have to honour any signed contract but under British law that can't be done before 17 and in most European countries 18. Liverpool did nothing wrong by declaring an interest and making an offer for the player yet they're for some reason reported. The Crewe chairman states the exact reason why he has no case:
"This kid will be getting several hundred pounds a week in expenses. We pay expenses but nothing like that. It's more a case of giving out £20 if someone can pick a kid up en-route."
This implicitly shows that the player is an amateur and has not signed a professional contract. FIFA guidelines only cover professional players - they don't claim any competence over amateur players except where they're moving internationally (which is probably what got Chelsea rather more than the training contract held with Lens).

These small clubs need to stop their whining and just negotiate hard with the talent they do have. If you look at the England team now probably two thirds of it have come through either the West Ham or Leeds United youth academies. Neither of these clubs have ever challenged for the top spots in the premiership, yet they nurture young talent and demand high prices from other clubs. They then take this money and reinvest it in other talent.

Think it was Max' topic. Quite sure actually.


Rob, this may be a good situation from an economical viewpoint or so, but for the examples you used (Leeds and West Ham) it's quite a crappy situation. They train the kids, learn them the basics, and then they get their talent stolen by some big-spending team. Basically the team that took the effort to built out a youth academy get their talent stolen when they're very young. As I said on the other topic, there is some kind of fee involved (that the buying team has to give to refund training) but it's ridiculously low. A lot of young kids are getting pushed by their manager and family (because they can profit from it), and I say that's not a good situation, disregarding the fact that it's allowed. Also, I think you are very biased here. It's not because the teams in your country profit from it, that it's good.

What could help is a more clear FIFA law regarding this subject, rather than punishing the odd case here and there.

Another day another update. Le Havre are claiming Man United have acted improperly whilst not actually filing a formal complaint with FIFA. This is libel.

Regardless of whether it's a good thing or not, things that make economic sense make footballing sense - the biggest clubs are the richest clubs. Take Real, Barca, United, Chelsea, Milan, Juve or a host of other rich clubs. They all spend big money usually on players who're between the ages of 22-28. Buying young players is a gamble since they may never reach their potential. Therefore actually attempting to elicit a decent price from larger clubs, especially with clauses such as a percentage of the next transfer fee, not only makes immediate sense but also the longterm sense of the player never turning out as good as you think they may be.

Currently the only thing that's awarded in these situations is compensation, which is awarded independently by an employment tribunal. The reason small clubs never listen to transfer offers is because they'd rather have the player. In the long term, a good player will never stay at a small club so it's a pointless argument. Rather than handing out heavy handed and pointless transfer bans, FIFA actually ought to look to increase the economic value to the clubs who feel slighted by players leaving to join larger clubs - which probably ought to be dependent on such things as later transfer fees, international appearances etc. (IE if a player leaves for nothing to join another club his original club should receive 30% or so of the next transfer or whatever).

As for a bias - not overly. I don't follow football so much anymore as you know. Football is and always will be a mercenary sport. It's a professional game rather than an amateur one and therefore players will always look to do the best for themselves - whether this is contractually or in a desire to win medals and trophies. Of course whilst at a club players will try to play well, but this is self serving since it means they can play for their country, attract interest from bigger and better clubs or just secure an improved contract at their current club.

Rob, in a way you are ofcourse right, when big teams spend money to attract players, nothing illegal is happening. But what still bothers me is the way the players are treated. As I mentioned a few times now: what big teams usually do is offer big jobs and houses to parents and managers, if they can get their son to sign a contract. Indeed, it's a gamble -- and many of them loose, end up on the bench or have to make the shameful trip back home.


Also, I have some problems with the fact that you deem the compensations as adequate. Well, if the player can't sign a contract till a certain age (in Belgium this is 16 I think), there is usely a minimal form of compensation, apart from the refund I mentioned earlier on. And for more older players, I don't really think a financial compensation makes up for the glory the player could bring the team that trained him. I can only imagine the bitter feeling youth coaches must have-- guiding a player for 5-6 years, and when he is about to make it to the A-team, some big team comes along. Furthermore, I think a "youth" player between the age of 18-20 is better off at a team where he can still make mistakes than at a big team where he usually won't get a chance.

Thing is though, lower league clubs often don't have the facilities to accommodate some of the better talent and help develop young players. Often, the younger players are better off at the larger clubs, where there are multiple coaches devoted to youth development, rather than say, Yeovil Town, who have a small number of staff and therefore can’t devote the same resources to each player. Would Clichy be the same player if he has stayed at Cannes for another 2 years or so? The teenage years are in a way the most important in a player’s career.