Contracts and Football - How could the game change?

[Torrent Of Abuse]

That interesting (and critical) link posted on the Eurosport thread discussing players and their disrespect for their contracts got me thinking...

 

When we talk about players and their contracts, it often comes back to a discussion about how strange player contracts are compared to the standard employment world. Many talk about how we would jump at the chance to double our pay if given the chance. Others talk about how we sign contracts and get locked into them. I guess it's not unlike the difference between people who work from short term contracts (without a permanent employer) and those who actually take a permanent role. So maybe on this thread we can have some speculation about what the game would look like if they changed the system of contracts for players. Choose what model you think would be fair or the one which you think would be likely to actually get agreed or just suggest something left-field and discuss how it might change the game - for better and (more likely) worse.

 

One model which might be like the normal employment world is that the lower level players would have fixed contracts (like normal employment contracts) which gave them a lower wage but more certainty of employment. Higher level players would opt for rolling contracts with the ability to switch clubs when they want to (when the best offer comes along). Players would have no real transfer value as they are in a sense free agents. The cost of the player would be solely the wages. Any player wanting to leave their permanent contract to switch to a higher paid rolling contract would have to pay compensation or see out their notice period. Similarly, the higher level players could be let go without compensation whereas lower level players could not.

 

Clubs would probably see out their existing contracts with players during the changeover (which would take years), gradually writing off their assets. Eventually all players would be only available on these shorter term deals with no transfer value.

 

The big clubs would obviously be able to pay the wages still.

There would be a huge gulf between clubs with more journeyman players on normal contracts and those who need the more mercenary type (I guess there is now actually).

It would be bad news for many players who leave the game through injury.

Saints would probably adapt and do ok, as we always do.

 

What ideas do any of you have?

[OldNick]

All it needs is for clubs to grow a pair. If a player is on a long contract throw them into the reserves for a few weeks.

Any player who is out with a longterm injury doesn't threaten to strike or put negatives on Twitter.

[CB Saint]

Easiest way is to back end any bonuses.

 

all performance bonuses, sign ons etc are accrued and paid out on completion of the contract. If we sell you, then we will pay up what's accrued. If you hand in a transfer request, then you lose it all. If you act like a little git and agitate for a move then it will be regarded as a transfer request.

[Chewy]

Easiest way is to back end any bonuses.

 

all performance bonuses, sign ons etc are accrued and paid out on completion of the contract. If we sell you, then we will pay up what's accrued. If you hand in a transfer request, then you lose it all. If you act like a little git and agitate for a move then it will be regarded as a transfer request.

 

I like this idea. My left field suggestion is that the fa employ people on central contracts and loan them to clubs each year for a fee plus wages. The fa would try and ensure that their best players get regular football so stop the biggest clubs hoarding players to sit on the bench, and if done globally it would allow smaller nations to stop all of their players going abroad. But as all the money sits with the clubs this would never happen.

 

The other option would be to cap basic wages and allow the astronomical extra to be paid as bonuses based on appearances and performance, incentivising players to want first team football rather than sit on a bench, and also to perform.

[Trout-Tickler]

Interesting post but I would highlight that you say 'if' the system of players contracts were to change, for me its only a matter of time. My understanding (and from talking to people who work in employment law) of the current system is that it doesn't fit with current EU employment legislation. All it's going to take is a player willing to take the case through the European Courts, another Jean Marc Bosman if you will, and the current system will collapse. Players will then be able to give notice / pay up their contracts and move to another club when they want, essentially like 'normal' employees. Should be interesting if if comes about.

Another point I don't understand is why no clubs have challenged the transfer window system. This is a clearly a restriction of free trade and must surely be illegal under EU law. Again it's going to need a club to carry the baton but once again if one was too the transfer windows should surely collapse.

[ENSKIED]

All it would take is FIFA and EUFA to get their house in order as it were and come out and say no club can buy another club's player WHEN HE IS UNDER CONTRACT - end of. All contracts must be honoured for the good of the game. If clubs are prohibited from buying a player under contract - after all that is one of the points of a contract, the rest of are legally bound by them - then that's basically it.

[andoru]

All it would take is FIFA and EUFA to get their house in order as it were and come out and say no club can buy another club's player WHEN HE IS UNDER CONTRACT - end of. All contracts must be honoured for the good of the game. If clubs are prohibited from buying a player under contract - after all that is one of the points of a contract, the rest of are legally bound by them - then that's basically it.

 

Problem with that is you'd then have players only agreeing to short term contracts. The very best could afford to do that, knowing there would be another team willing to sign them when the contract is up. Imagine Lallana etc had only had 12 month contracts. They could have run them down, then switched teams as free agents and Saints would have got no money for losing them. The contract protects the player as an asset for the club.

[ENSKIED]

Problem with that is you'd then have players only agreeing to short term contracts. The very best could afford to do that, knowing there would be another team willing to sign them when the contract is up. Imagine Lallana etc had only had 12 month contracts. They could have run them down, then switched teams as free agents and Saints would have got no money for losing them. The contract protects the player as an asset for the club.

 

First we must agree this state of affairs which has seen Southampton "raped", well at least has seen the grass root support "raped", while other make millions of pounds - can't go on.

If we agree that then we bring in legislation to prevent it happening again.

Most of the power in this very poor state of affairs lies primarily with some greedy owners, many, many greedy agents and thence the players themselves.

 

So having established the problem and most of the criteria involved - you facilitate conditions and clauses as standard into the contracts that make them work. For example a 12 month contract comes with clauses concerning sales and valuations and if necessary evaluation committees REAL ONES are set up, or conversely you don't allow 12 month contracts, or other clauses are enforced whereby the player MUST buy out his contract for a high percentage of any fee, a percentage that reduces with 'service', so after say five years a player can move without a contractual penalty thereby making a longer contract more attractive both for player and clubs. If all the players and clubs are bound by enforceable sensible rules then it can work. A "thing" works if :

 

1] You want it to really work

 

2] Procedures and laws are set up to ENSURE it works

 

Go back a little over a hundred years and few people thought powered flight was possible especially powered flight capable of carrying say a thousand people at 500 -700 miles per hour or even faster. All things within reason are possible and you have to make therm so.

[charliemiller]

Easiest way is to back end any bonuses.

 

all performance bonuses, sign ons etc are accrued and paid out on completion of the contract. If we sell you, then we will pay up what's accrued. If you hand in a transfer request, then you lose it all. If you act like a little git and agitate for a move then it will be regarded as a transfer request.

 

How about adding to that witholding 25% of there wages and paying it back at the end of the each transfer window as a loyalty bonus .......players would hate that i know .

[Depressed of Shirley]

Why not give the clubs the same power as the players? A run of bad games, or a long term injury, and it could be " sorry we have cancelled your contract."

 

Alternatively, as above, you sign a contract, and you stay for that contract, irrespective of whether you've always dreamt of playing for Liverpool.

[Polaroid Saint]

Scrapping transfer fees entirely would be a good start. Clubs can then get the benefit of the sponsorship payouts (mostly Sky for EPL) and can choose how to invest in a market driven by player wages, rather than speculative and subjective 'valuations' at time of sale. This may still result in clubs overspending to their detriment but will also allow clubs to explore other means in order to compete (I.e. Academies).

 

Basic Freedom Of Movement, innit? Football Clubs, like all other organisations, cannot legally 'own' player (worker), so the whole thing is already built on sand. Scrap transfer fees altogether, scrap the transfer window altogether too - as it creates an artificial market and is also, technically, illegal. Yes there are caveats and 'special circumstance' but like much of legislation in the world, these seem to be able to be either invoked or ignored to suit.

 

Agreements can be made in a normal employment contract in regard to professional development and something akin to intellectual property laws to protect both employer and employee, without creating an artificial 'honour system' (artificial in that it is nonsystematic and dishonourable!).

 

Great thread. I will enjoy reading it and everyone's thoughts, ideas and arguments when I get back from work (yeah, I do work sometimes). And then hopefully I can add more than this two penneth worth.

[Stirchleysaint]

Scrapping transfer fees entirely would be a good start.

Yes but you'll have to introduce a compensation scheme that would be based on contract value. So a contested situation such as Schneiderlin's would see the full amount paid up for the remaining three years. There would have to be some standard formula as to various clauses and bonuses across football.

 

It would put more pressure on wages but then hopefully you wouldn't get half the rubbish from players attempting to get moves away. It would be a simple notification to the FA or whoever. Entitlement to some contract value would still be a problem. Not sure how you solve that.

[CB Saint]

If you scrap transfer fees, guess who would be trousering the £25m we got for Lallana.

 

The only way we will ever get around this is to scrap relegation from the EPL and give all teams a playing staff wage cap - Say £70m. the you can divvy it up any which way you like. Have a couple of galacticos, and you will have to scrimp somewhere else.

[hasper57saint]

Change the rules. Make any player under the age of 21 an Apprentice. They would only be able to move Clubs with the cast iron consent of their current club. All clubs would then benefit from transparency in contractual matters. Apprentices would be 'bound' at a club until their certification was confirmed.

PS. Contract simply means 'agreement between two parties' where each give a promised commitment to an outcome. Offer - Acceptance. That's it.

[Batman]

Change the rules. Make any player under the age of 21 an Apprentice. They would only be able to move Clubs with the cast iron consent of their current club. All clubs would then benefit from transparency in contractual matters. Apprentices would be 'bound' at a club until their certification was confirmed.

PS. Contract simply means 'agreement between two parties' where each give a promised commitment to an outcome. Offer - Acceptance. That's it.

 

Will that mean it would be harder for us to take plymouth players when we click our fingers?

[Webby]

For a start, any player not wanting to play for the club should submit a transfer request, which will be made public. If the club don't want to sell, then they can reject the request. That's the end of it. Any troublemaking or agitation for a move will be met with fines.

 

If the club accept the request then they must state a release fee. Up to buyers to meet that fee.

 

Bonuses should be paid in the final year of contract or at renewal, whichever comes sooner. All bonuses are lost if player hands in TR.

[derry]

Make all transfer fees payable up front. That would bring them down.

[IronCitySaint]

I'm not sure about how to change specific contracts but the whole transfer system is broken and needs reorganising. When I first moved to the US I thought the 'transfers' or 'trading' system in their sports was comical as it is so different to how things are done in the football world, but now think that the system employed here in the US might benefit football.

In the major sports here there are not really transfers as such. If a team decides that they want a player from another team then they have to do a player trade meaning that they would have to give up something of real value to get what they want. For example, if Liverpool really want Lallana then they might have to agree to give us Coutinho plus another player so that the 'trade' is balanced. The player cannot simply move mid-contract to get a better pay day because both sides of the trade have to just honour the existing contract until that contract is over. So, if Lallana had just signed a new 5 year deal (doh) then he would only be paid the amount agreed in that contract for the remaining 4 years at the new club.

To give the players a little bargaining power, they are entitled to become free agents after a certain number of years, so allowing them to negotiate a new hefty contract on their terms either with their existing team or a new team.

All this should prevent scavenging of a club like ours and even the field a bit between big and small clubs, and between players and clubs. If that system can be legally enforced in the US then I can't see why it cannot be enforced elsewhere.

[captainchris]

How about adding to that witholding 25% of there wages and paying it back at the end of the each transfer window as a loyalty bonus .......players would hate that i know .

 

Ahhh now this is the one that works. It's all about the wording and conditions of the contract monetarily.....

You don't need legistration. Clubs need to offer contracts that are based around wages paid up on completion of landmarks, otherwise they are fools which it has emerged we have been!!! Big style...

Poorly worded contracts are allowing these mercenaries to demand what they like.

Let's face it the money they are on is simply obscene and an insult to fans....

Next thing is - DON'T BUY SKY !!!!!! You are fueling the demise if football....

[Wurzel]

A bit out of the box this one.

 

The clubs are nothing without a league to play in, so how about the players be contracted to the league not to a club. The league can then lease a player out to a club for a fixed period. Club plays the wages, they pay the league to lease the player. If more than one club require a player when he becomes available then it goes to auction.

 

Clubs with good academies could be protected with no player being allowed to move clubs until a certain age - say 21 . After that the original club could receive a percentage of the lease fee for the rest of that players career.

 

To try and create a level playing field the league could restrict the number of new signings per season and/or squad size for each club. If a club desperately wants to replace a player mid lease with someone better they still have to pay the remainder of the lease. Cap the wages as a percentage of matchday turnover (i.e not sponsorship etc) per squad, as this still rewards the likes of ManUre who have built themselves up with bigger stadium etc over the years whilst

 

Not sure how to deal with promoted teams, I guess their players registrations would have to transfer to the league, but automatically revert to a lease for the corresponding period of their original contracts. Relegated players would have to see out the period of their lease with their club with some sort of salary allowance replacing parachute payments.

 

The lease money the league receives (minus the percentage to the original academy) could then be pumped back into grass roots football, used as prize money, made available as grants/loans to clubs for long term capital projects like new stadiums etc.

 

I'm sure there's loads of employment issues that this could bring up but I've always argued that the EPL or any other league is a competition, clubs can "employ" whoever/however they want but the league can make up any rules they like for entering their competition.

 

This would probably isolate us internationally, with the best players ending up abroad - unless ALL countries adopted the same structure - but would make for a much more equal league for the paying punter to enjoy. Whilst it would still be unlikely that everyone starts the season hoping to win the league, it should take it back to the stage where nobody started a season considering 17th place as a success.

[Mystic Force]

I have a non compete clause in my contract. That would stop people moving......

[Trader]

I'm not sure about how to change specific contracts but the whole transfer system is broken and needs reorganising. When I first moved to the US I thought the 'transfers' or 'trading' system in their sports was comical as it is so different to how things are done in the football world, but now think that the system employed here in the US might benefit football.

In the major sports here there are not really transfers as such. If a team decides that they want a player from another team then they have to do a player trade meaning that they would have to give up something of real value to get what they want. For example, if Liverpool really want Lallana then they might have to agree to give us Coutinho plus another player so that the 'trade' is balanced. The player cannot simply move mid-contract to get a better pay day because both sides of the trade have to just honour the existing contract until that contract is over. So, if Lallana had just signed a new 5 year deal (doh) then he would only be paid the amount agreed in that contract for the remaining 4 years at the new club.

To give the players a little bargaining power, they are entitled to become free agents after a certain number of years, so allowing them to negotiate a new hefty contract on their terms either with their existing team or a new team.

All this should prevent scavenging of a club like ours and even the field a bit between big and small clubs, and between players and clubs. If that system can be legally enforced in the US then I can't see why it cannot be enforced elsewhere.

 

Sounds good but the trouble is that this would have to be implemented worldwide - I can't see the really big clubs agreeing to things being "evened up a bit".

 

It's OK for US major sports to have such a system because nobody else actually plays these "major sports" - not with the sort of salaries paid in the US anyway.