Of course, it was an *agent* who said this so, y'know…

The number of forces influencing the ultimate result increases with the day (it is also worth noting that Berlusconi in his football club ownership role is all for freedom of movement).

My own guess is that the ultimate resolution of this issue, at least for top flight players, will be the extension of the Spanish concept of including a set price that has to be paid should a player wish to rescind his contract. Short of being able to prove duress, such an arrangement should hold up under the Webster principles.

One can view this particular battle as a skirmish in a larger conflict between FIFA (and its constitutent federations) and the wealthiest clubs over control of an essential elment of the game.

Blatter has argued that the CAS's ruling "distorts" Article 17 by disregarding what the regulations say about contractual stability and the exceptional nature of sport. Had the ruling gone the other way, I think the EC would have argued that it disregarded what the regulations said about freedom of movement for players.

In other words, I think there was always going to be a conflict between FIFA and the EC over Article 17 as soon as it was invoked and interpreted, which is one reason it took so long for anyone to try it—no one wanted to take the first step into the legal minefield.

The other reason it took so long is that clubs have been diligent over the last few years about renewing the contracts of players they want to keep before the players became eligible for an Article 17 move.

So the deeper question here is why FIFA and the EC signed off on transfer regulations that they understood in fundamentally different ways and were predestined to disagree about. I guess it's just the nature of political compromise. Anyway, it should be interesting this summer to see whether any of the Webster-eligible players (Michael Owen, et. al.) try to follow in Webster's footsteps, or whether the dramatic interpretation of the CAS ruling that I came to in the post above turns out to be a bit exaggerated.

I think I'm right in saying that the clause that allowed Webster to do this arose out of negotiations between FIFA and the European Commission several years ago. So why is it that now someone has actually enforced this clause do FIFA want to change it?

But now Brian has spared me from having to think of something original.

It's not on the scale of Bosman, but it could take European football towards American sports in terms of the balance of spending.