Say there’s a violin prodigy. He’s 10 years old, and he plays Mozart the way other kids play Halo. He gets accepted to the music school near his house, where he’s immediately the best student. He works hard, and in a few years, the schools offers him a spot in its conservatory, which is a feeder for the local symphony. It’ll be a few more years before he’s old enough to enroll, but he’s happy at the school, so he agrees.
But the thing is, he keeps getting better. His natural technique is phenomenal, he practices nonstop, and by the time he’s 16 he’s ripping through Paganini caprices and everyone around him is thinking that if he plays his cards right, he could have an incredible future as a soloist. Around this time, another conservatory shows up, not the local school this time but a world-renowned international institution, and offers him a scholarship spot. They want to pay him to go to their school and learn from some of the best musicians on the planet. It’s an amazing opportunity, and he desperately wants to take it, but there’s a problem: he already has this agreement to go to the local conservatory. So what happens?
The answer’s obvious, right? The local school hates to let him go—they’ve invested a lot in his development—but we’re talking about a 16-year-old kid. Yes, they had an agreement, but he made it when he was 14, for God’s sake; there’s no way it’s fair to stand in the way of his talent and his future over a statement of intent he made as a child. The school swallows its disappointment and wishes him good luck. He thanks them for everything they’ve done and goes on to the conservatory to follow his dreams. Happy ending. Roll credits.
Or—since we’re talking about soccer, not music, and the real issue here is the punishment FIFA have handed down over Chelsea’s signing of young Gaël Kakuta—maybe the local school demands a cash payment to drop the agreement, the conservatory refuses, the prodigy breaks the deal and enrolls in the conservatory anyway, the local school accuses the conservatory of predatory talent-poaching, and a pedagogical tribunal that’s convened to hear the case bans the prodigy from performing for four months, slaps him with a massive fine, and forbids the conservatory from admitting any new students for the next calendar year. But really, that’s a better situation for everybody, right?
What’s gotten more or less lost in the discussion of this story, which has generally focused either on the idea that FIFA are “finally standing up to a big club” or on the question of whether FIFA are biased against the English, is the fact that we are talking about a freaking child. As we speak, Gaël Kakuta is two months past his 18th birthday. He signed with Chelsea when he was 16, breaking a pre-contract agreement he’d made with Lens when he was 14 years old. Now, for the crime of going to the club where he thought he’d have a better chance of developing what everyone agrees is an extraordinary talent, he’s been fined €780,000 by FIFA, quietly vilified in the press, and told he can’t play for four months.
The big-club-vs.-small-club narrative is so ingrained in football that we reflexively see anything that benefits a smaller club at the expense of a bigger club as “fair.” But this isn’t fair. We’ve gotten so used to seeing Premier League clubs as wicked developers strip-mining the talents of poorer continental clubs that we’ve started thinking the latter have some kind of moral right to control the futures of their very young trainees. But players that age ought to control their own futures. In any other field, we’d look at this story and see Lens standing in the way of the right of a child and his parents to decide what’s best for him. In football we see the kid as a strategic weapon in a quasi-declared class war in which his preferences don’t really count.
Last season, when Federico Macheda started playing well for Manchester United and Lazio’s president complained that Man Utd had “stolen” him, the media basically endorsed the familiar impression of the predatory English club snapping up young players they had no right to approach. Everyone lamented the fact that Italian clubs aren’t allowed to sign players to contracts till they’re 18, giving them no protection against poaching. But the reason Italian clubs aren’t allowed to sign players that young to contracts is precisely so that adolescent players can make up their own minds about where and how they want to learn the game—in other words, to allow transfers precisely like Macheda’s to happen without interference.
Macheda wasn’t an asset or an employee, he was a kid with a spectacular talent, and it was up to him to decide what to do with it. It was too bad for Lazio that he chose Manchester United, but more importantly, it was good for Macheda. The system worked exactly the way it should, even if it went against the grain of the big-clubs-bad consensus, because the system shouldn’t be designed to protect the interests of football clubs when it comes to 16-year-old players. It should be designed to protect the interests of the 16-year-olds.
In France, unlike in Italy, players can sign pre-contracts long before they’re old enough to play professionally. FIFA apparently considers those pre-contracts to be as binding as actual contracts, meaning that Chelsea and Kakuta probably are in violation of the regulations governing player transfers and probably will be punished. But the rules that created this situation are wrong and ought to be changed. Clubs, like nearly every other institution that deals with children, ought to understand that they don’t have the right to profit from them. 14 is too young to vote and to drive a car in most countries, France included; it’s too young to possess full self-determination, and it’s too young to be bound by “the principle of honoring contracts.” Players that age shouldn’t have to mortgage their own futures so that Lens can be guaranteed a paycheck.
Read More: Chelsea, FIFA, Premier League
by Brian Phillips · September 4, 2009
Extremely well stated and a side of the issue that is far under-discussed. The punishment of Kakuta (and the scale of his fine) seems so far out of line–780k is more than most established Premier League players could comfortably pay and losing 4 months of playing time (especially after being included on Chelsea’s Champions League roster) has to be a huge blow to the player’s future. Hopefully, Ancelotti finds a place for him in the team following his ban, if only as a sign of support for a player under fire. I suspect, however, that he’ll be quietly shuttled off to another club within the year.
As a Chelsea supporter, my reaction to the sanction on the club is that we mostly got what we deserve. Many Chelsea fans have long been uneasy with the club’s upper management (alternating being skeptical of Kenyon, then Grant, now Arnesen) and the shady dealing that have long been rumored have come back to bite. Chelsea already have a squad capable of winning the Premier League title–here’s hoping that injuries, suspensions and the Africa Cup of Nations are kind to us.
The punishment simply does not fit the ‘crime’. These French rules meant to protect youth players are about as sensical as the NCAA imposing an arbitrary time limit on training and conditioning, as obstructive as Ricky Rubio’s buyout clause. The ‘fight the power’ meme that’s been played up even in the English press is entirely misguided, perhaps even disconnected with the reality of football’s long-standing economic structure. While initially I was convinced Chelsea will successfully appeal, now I am not so sure. If the ban is upheld, what are the on-field consequences? The Blues certainly do not field the youngest squad…
I’m not saying you’re wrong (and you’ve made a convincing case which has significantly altered my perception of the event — which could’ve been summed up before reading this with a laugh and an extended middle finger aimed at London, particularly given their deranged assault on Mutu’s pocketbook), but, since my general intuition is that we (we in this case meaning modern people whose mores are primarily shaped by the Western philosophical tradition, and especially Americans) are overly invested in the welfare and rights of the individual as they appear to the individual (the autonomous self) and under-invested in the importance of welfare of the community (which turns out to be considerably more important in determining the welfare of the individual than is allowed under the stricter varieties of the autonomous-self-model), I think it could easily be that everyone-invested-in-football (from fans to players to owners) as a whole is better off under a system like the French system, even if it produces injustices for the individual player, because it produces a more equal soccer ecology, which is enjoyed more by a larger group of people1, though I’m not sure I really have a good idea about how to go about proving that2.
I’m not even sure that I want to prove that, as it looks (the way I’ve written it, at least) as if I’m arguing for some kind of utilitarian analysis (“the greater good”, blah, blah), and I am, as a rule, suspicious of utilitarian analyses, even though they can often be useful.
All those caveats aside, I do think there’s an argument there to be had, and that the key assumption of your piece — that the good of the individual ought to trump the good of the club — isn’t as blindingly obvious as the forceful quality of your writing makes it appear, particularly once we expand from considering only the interests of the club versus the interests of the individual to include the interests of the fans of the clubs, or even neutral spectators.
1 Of course, whether a more equal ecology is desirable or not is a thing that could be argued about for a very long time. I’m not sure I could really say whether I prefer the greater degree of equality in MLS to the lesser degree of equality in the Premiership, though if forced to decide, I’d probably opt for the former. I certainly think the greater equality in the Bundesliga, for instance, makes up for the lower quality of top teams in comparison to the Premiership. But the genius of the greatest club teams has usually been birthed from great inequality, which allows the most talented individuals to play with one another, and who would want to have last season’s Barcelona taken away from us (besides Madrid and United fans, that is?)
2 (Hmmm. That sentence was nearly long enough to find a place in The Broom of the System; hope it makes sense.)
Sorry, the superscript doesn’t appear to have come through.
Well, that’s an argument that can be had in general terms, but to me it gets rapidly less interesting as it applies to football, where “the interest of the community” is a euphemism for a leisure activity pursued by fans. You’re going to have a tough time convincing me that that ought to impose a limit on the right of self-determination of a 16-year-old.
First, I think it’s hard to argue that Chelsea were not intentionally trying to exploit the difference in the laws’ of France and England to sign the kid for way lower than his value, or a fair return for Lens’ invested time and money. Turns out Chelsea didn’t explore the nuances of French law well enough, even though they were warned, so really tough luck for them. They’re a large, sophisticated entity that was willing to use what they thought was their legal advantage, that cuts both ways.
I don’t think you can have a system in which kids have complete freedom of movement and still maintain an economic incentive for clubs to train these kids. Clubs invest in training grounds and coaches, living space, education, medical treatment, and don’t see nearly the return at the gate or through television or advertising. If their best prospects can simply say, “Thanks, but I got a better opportunity elsewhere” then why sink all those costs in the first place? If there are fewer youth schools and they’re of lower quality, that can’t serve the best interests of these kids.
excellent point, brian, and an enjoyable read. as i read your article, i wondered about this idea of when a child should be considered to have self-determination. i suppose you could make an argument that chelsea’s signing the player at 16 (when europe prohibits that until 18) is also an unfair violation of a child’s rights. how do you decide when the player can decide? i’m not sure i believe a 16-year-old is able to decide what’s “best” for him and his career when clubs come knocking and offering £10,000/week.
so there’s an interesting and delicate balance between protecting the youngsters with laws preventing them from signing contracts, and giving these players the freedom to join the biggest conservatories in the world, where they can develop as they please. i’m not sure i know which is more important, but something about clubs coming and throwing so much money at kids makes me a little queasy.
Colin — Absolutely right on point one. I’m not arguing that Chelsea are innocent under the rules, just that the rules are crazy.
On point two, I can imagine a number of alternatives that fall between treating 14-year-olds trainees as professionals and the complete disintegration of the academy system. (For that matter, the academy system does okay in Italy, despite the lack of contractual legal protections.) The simplest way would be to treat the academy as a school, with a set, published tuition that was tied to actual costs. Players could go through the academy system without paying the tuition, on the understanding that if they left for a different club before they turned 18, either they or the club they were moving to would have to pay the incurred costs. That way Lens could run their academy system at a reasonable profit without treating it as a speculation market in young talent.
As bad as it may look for Chelsea to swoop in and lure young players away from their home-town clubs, surely it’s no better for a club like Lens to gamble on making millions from a teenager into whose development they had invested thousands, and all because of an agreement that the player had entered into at 14.
jeremy — Yeah, I agree. I’m not sure exactly what the solution is, but some kind of continuation of the “this is school” approach until the player turns 18 seems like the right direction.
I’m not sure if this is possible under European law, but another important step would be for FIFA to universalize the transfer rules applying to young players to prevent these weird national imbalances that clubs in one country could exploit at the expense of clubs in another.
Brian –
Yeah, arguing that “leisure activity” outweighs “right of self-determination” would be fairly difficult (and I have no desire to, though maybe my blathering about league preferences obscured that), but that doesn’t mean that “right of self-determination” ought to be given exclusive focus, as Colin and Jeremy have pointed out in more specific ways. The general idea that I was getting at (and there are big problems that arise starting with general ideas rather than specifics) is that considering only the specific interests of a given individual in a given case can produce a strong sense of injustice even if most everyone is better off under the system that produces that sense of injustice — potentially even including the individual (collective action problem, right? I’m better off if I act outside the rules of the system while everyone else follows it, but if everyone acts outside the rules, we’re all worse off). Whether this is one of those cases or not, I’m not sure.
Brian, your last point in your last comment (“I’m not sure if this is possible under European law…”) is exactly my problem with your overall post.
I have my own opinions on whether or not 14 year olds should be able to make decisions concerning their future and all that, but what’s important (and obvious from my perspective) is that there needs to be FIFA-wide constancy on the issue of age.
I don’t know the ins and outs of EU politics, much less international politics, so I don’t know if this would work, but the system becomes extremely unbalanced the instant one party (in this case English clubs) has the ability to offer 16 year olds profession contracts while their home clubs do not have that ability. Kakuta and Macheda probably made the right decisions based on their own individuality, but that doesn’t make the laws themselves correct (I don’t think anyone is arguing that, but I believe it’s worth pointing out) and it creates a rather massive imbalance.
Take, for instance, a club like Barcelona, who have a rather good youth system. In the last few years, FCB has lost several high-profile players to English clubs (Cesc, Merida, and Pique) because English clubs can offer them professional contracts and Spanish clubs cannot. Either England’s rules must be amended or Spain’s must be and because I’m pretty sure the Spanish rules are actually EU rules, I would think changing England’s rules would be easier and perhaps FIFA is capable of enforcing that as the governing body.
Because I’m not a lawyer, I’m not entirely sure about the legality of what I’m suggesting, but that’s my take on it. I’m of the opinion that children need not be professional athletes, so I’m on the side of the EU/continental leagues regarding the proper age for contracts, but I’m more for just across-the-board rules that would end this kind of discussion. Your idea of a youth academy “cost” is a very interesting one, actually, and worth a few moments to ponder it.
I agree—I should have been clearer about this in in the post. I’m not defending either the English system of youth contracts in general or Chelsea’s behavior in this case in particular.
I think Macheda and Kakuta should have been free to move clubs at 16, but not in order to sign binding professional contracts. (This is what I should have been clearer about.) That just exacerbates what I object to in the current state of things, and I’d have to write this post all over again when, say, Chelsea refused to let a player they’d poached from Barcelona at 16 sign for Real Zaragoza at 17. (It could happen!)
From what I’ve read, a lawyer was quoted as saying if Chelsea approached a London High Court and make this a restraint of trade case they would actually have a good chance of winning this. (High Courts in England apparently “hate restraint of trade”) But he goes on to say they should not do so and approach the CAS because otherwise it would set a “dangerous precedent” in football.
Make of it what you will.
Was that the same piece that speculated that Chelsea wouldn’t try the High Court option because it would make them “reviled in world football”? I read that yesterday and thought, “You mean as opposed to the tender embrace world football holds them in now?”
It seems to me you have a very specific harm you’re worried about: that a club could refuse to sell a talented kid to another club where the kid could better develop. I wonder whether creating a freedom of movement system would just further entrench the powers that be. Big clubs with the best youth teams would essentially get the pick of the litter, and wouldn’t have to pay anything more than past cost for the choice. If big clubs get the best youth talent for no premium, clearly the gap between the big clubs and others will only widen. I’m not sure whether remedying the danger of a kid being stuck is worth giving big clubs that advantage.
I’m not saying the current system, which is basically a geographical lottery wealth redistribution, is all that great. But at least it mitigates that Champions League surplus a little, in theory.
And I agree with Isaiah et al that the English loophole should be closed, if possible under EU law.
Is it in the best interest of a talented teenager to be playing in the wild and wooly world of the Premier League? Of course the two examples you cite seem to be working out for the players but how many stories do we not hear about teenagers signed by big clubs who find themselves culturally, socially, or financially in over their heads? My guess (and it is a guess) is that it isn’t that uncommon. It’s a lot of pressure at a young age. Talented or not.
I fear a free market for talented teenagers will inevitably grind up a lot of potential talents for the sake of a few starlets. It’s a little to mercenary or gladiatorial for my comfort.
Excuse the improper use of ‘to’ in the preceding post. Lazy fingers i suppose.
Colin — Yes, it would probably mean that the best youth players would end up in the best youth academies. Why isn’t that a good thing? Why shouldn’t the best youth players get to go to the best youth academies?
Not everything in football has to come back to the issue of inequality between clubs and fixing the Champions League. That’s part of my point; I find it frustrating that that’s become the immediate, single filter through which every story like this has to be viewed. Yes, letting 14-year-olds move academies would probably marginally increase the disparity between clubs. (I don’t think it would be more than marginally, because youth development is so unpredictable.) I’m saying I think it should happen anyway, for other, better reasons.
j — So you want to force them to stay at clubs they’d rather leave in order to protect them from pressure? Let’s assume the kids and their parents are in a better position to determine their best interest than we are.
Generally — The important point here is whether we think 14-year-olds are competent to enter into binding legal contracts. If we don’t, then all the speculation in the world about what effect X would have on football is beside the point.
Brian, when you say that Kakuta and Macheda should have been free to move at 16, does that mean that Chelsea or ManU (respectively) would have to pay a “transfer fee” for them? And what if the players have signed with an agent? Does that mean the agent gets a cut? Are agents not allowed for children under this proposed system?
(I am not disparaging your thinking, by the way–I’m merely trying to think of all the things that make this a more complicated matter than just “let’s do this one thing and right the ship”.)
I don’t think there should be a transfer fee, because I don’t think they should be thought of as salable club assets when they’re 16. I’m up for the idea of reimbursement for development expenses (the “tuition” concept I floated above).
I’m a million miles away from having an instantly implentable solution to what’s obviously a complex situation, and I’m not claiming to have one. I’m just saying “the ship is wrong in a way that few people are talking about, and maybe we should identify the tilt.”
I think you’re discarding j’s concern far too easily. If I understand him correctly, he’s saying that the players themselves might be better off in a system like the French system even if they don’t realize it. And if that is the case, then simply saying “the kids and their parents should decide” is a bit of a cop-out. After all, if the kids aren’t competent to enter binding legal contracts (presumably also with the assistance of their parents), why would we think that they are necessarily going to reach the right conclusions about which club they’ll develop best at?
Its also worth noting that its quite possible that one system is best for the interests of the extraordinary few and the other is best for the interests of the majority of players, and then we have to decide which alternative or balance to pursue.
Which returns me again to my original point — that you’re thinking about this in a different way than most, which is very helpful, but that maybe you’ve followed your contrarian logic a bit too far? You’re not wrong, though, that many (and I’ll include myself in that group and consider myself corrected) approach these questions with “what do I prefer for my entertainment?”, not “what is best for the player?”
As with all thorny debates, this boils down to the infinitely boring “it’s a complex issue”. Children as white goods is always going to be morally contemptible, especially when (if transfer fees are to be received) they would be effectively forced to move countries as soon as a good offer came in.
Self-determination is a pretty important aspect (and a Yankee one), but if the kid can’t be held to a contract he signed, why could he make the decision to uproot his life for more money? (I realise this point was made) Maybe if a wage cap for youth players was to be introduced, because while I loathe the idea of wage caps in general, and believe footballers aren’t overpaid, woo – go free market, academies are kinda important to world development.
Maybe if budget divisions towards academies were to be regulated perhaps? For example Barcelona seems to be a city composed entirely of massively promising 14 year olds (thanks for Pacheco), none are growing up in West London, to the degree were they’re being stolen in the night from France apparently. These disparities in geographical talent can’t really be anything other than a lack of key funding – maybe if a budget percentage had to be allocated for local scouting?
I don’t know, if I had the answers I guess I’d be working under Scudamore; although since I don’t have them I am still considering job options UEFA, but any sort of wage/spending/player/ethnicity cap can’t really work in a global sport. Ugh, is there any safe side of the fence to sit on anymore?
The other issue here is a fundamental problem with how these clubs do business. In attempting to court the best youngsters, are clubs thinking of the children’s best interests? When clubs drop huge sacks of cash on the parent’s coffee table (as allegedly took place in the Pogba case), are the parents thinking of the children’s interests? As an earlier commenter noted, if a 16-year-old cannot be trusted to sign a professional contract, can they be trusted to know a move abroad is in their best interests?
Clubs like Chelsea and Man U are going over the heads of directors who refuse to allow players to leave directly to their parents. If the child’s finances are controlled (and ultimately, belong to) the parents, aren’t off-contract payments and professional contracts tantamount to transfer bungs?
Brian:
It’s like saying person X — a convicted murderer in a lower court, facing life imprisonment — should not appeal to a higher court because he will be looked at in poor light.
If Chelsea think appealing to the High Court would save them, they’d be foolish not to, even though it throws a giant spanner in the works of FIFA.
Andrew — All good points, but the mechanism to fix them is surely not “just go ahead and let them sign contracts at 14 because change they want later might potentially be detrimental.”
I don’t really think the clubs need to be thinking about the kids’ best interest, as long as they meet some standard of treating them well, in the same way that good boarding schools aren’t (or aren’t exclusively) thinking about the kids’ best interest when they decide what students to admit.
The money/parents issue is definitely alive, but the whole issue (which goes back to rob’s comment, too) of not being able to trust them to make the right choice strikes me as just uncertainty-of-the-universe stuff that doesn’t have much weight in the argument, certainly not as a counter against the claims of autonomy. After all, they’re choosing the original club in the first place, and I don’t think anyone’s arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to do so. And if that choice goes wrong, I don’t see why a 15- or 16-year-old should be stuck with the actual bad consequences of that choice because we want to protect them from the hypothetical bad consequences of the next one.
Yes, it’s a complex issue, as George says, but it’s also possibly to overcomplexify it. Giving adolescents who are essentially students some flexibility to pursue the opportunities that are open to them seems (to me at least) obviously enough the best-interest decision that the case against it needs to meet a higher burden of proof than “they might make the wrong choice.”
Wow, I’m starting to think this was the debate Milton had in his head when he decided to write Paradise Lost.
Red Ranter — Exactly. Because the other prisoners would resent him!
Adolescents ARE pretty damn stupid though; would the abundance of world-class players make a positive difference to Kakuta’s devolpment if they were (and are) keeping him out of competitive football?
You tell Kakuta he won’t make the first team at Chelsea? Undermine the confidence that makes his play so good? A 17 year old Fowler scored a fantastic goal for England U-18s, later explaining he’d “seen an inch” of goal, and knew he could score. Nuestro Dios.
Do you tie youth transfers to some formula of costs incurred*years at club? Maybe the punishments and system transparently aren’t fair. But if we’re talking greater good, football is entertainment – with Chelsea’s old squad they could collapse. A talented youngster could raise a club beyond their level. Mercury rising eclipses the sun.
Ethical is one thing, but financial incentive is always more important, for better or worse and what if the entertainment of the next Kakuta, chained to his desert rock, dragging his club up behind him draws more viewers and revenue, so they can afford to invest in more youths?
If you apply the cucumber principle there is no solution that can make everyone (or even most people) happy. In England, there’s a 2 hours travel rule for signing to a club, and a United fan from Kent wouldn’t be able to sign for their YTS. But maybe if he was from Manchester, they wouldn’t have scouted him – do the Kent club not deserve some kind of incentive to keep spending money on scouting youth and school games?
Every now and then you say something really brilliant. This is one of those times.
I really enjoyed reading this. It’s an elegant argument, but I really think it’s completely wrong. Sports are not designed to maximize individual potential or even individual control over one’s future and earning potential. The club is the imperative. It’s the organization that makes the money and brings in the fans and defines the communities. No one except people who are being purposefully iconoclastic actually follow players and players only.
So, basically, no one particularly cares about Kakuta’s development or wishes, and rightfully so, because the larger big clubs vs. small clubs narrative is the one that matters to the people who run and pay for the game. Thwarting the wishes of teenagers leads to pissed off teenagers. Thwarting any semblance of competitive balance leads to…well, the concentration of wealth and power and dullness that we see in most of the modern game.
On another level, I think there’s also a pretty compelling logic to George’s point that teenagers, by and large, are simply idiots and shouldn’t be entrusted with mopeds, let along major contracts.
You say the Italian laws are in place to allow youngster to keep their options open while they’re still children but at the same time think it is okay for clubs of other countries to sign under 18 players to professional contracts.
This seems like a contradiction or double-standard.
Brian, my point is that the best youth players almost always, if not always, already get to go to the best youth schools. The market already works that out in almost every case. The problem in Kakuta’s case was the clubs disagreed about the market because they disagreed about Kakuta’s legal status. That has more to do with the England loophole than any intrinsic right to free movement before the age of 18.
The issue is whether remedying the rare occasions where a kid is held back by a local club is worth the additional inequality between clubs. That inequality is probably overstated, as you have said very well. It still has to be weighed against the problem you’ve mentioned, which might very objectionable in principle, but I’m not convinced is practically all that big an issue.
A. — What? I’m explicitly saying that it’s not okay for clubs of other countries to sign under-18 players to professional contracts.
Max J. — No, you’re right, sports leagues aren’t designed to maximize individual potential, and that’s why I’m arguing that clubs themselves don’t have to be motivated by considerations of the child’s best interest. But labor laws are a different story. And FIFA, which governs the amateur game as well as the professional game, and which embraces a social mission as part of its mandate, has to be devoted to more than the overriding imperative of the club. I mean, if Spurs tried to chain me to a giant hamster wheel in their basement to cut down on electrical costs, I a) wouldn’t be all that surprised, but b) would have remedies to turn to, because the law is looking out for my rights and FIFA is not cool with clubs practicing giant hamster-wheel slavery. This is that: an issue of human rights and social responsibility.
More generally, I’m surprised by how many of you seem to be persuaded by the “teenagers are idiots and shouldn’t be allowed to move clubs because they might make the wrong choice” argument. The very simple problem with this argument is that unless you want to create some kind of tribunal to assign eight-year-olds to youth academies, kids are already choosing their own clubs. (Sometimes within geographical limits, but still.) The question is whether they should be able to make that choice irreversible by signing a professional contract at an early age. And precisely because they’re idiots—but idiots we have to protect—most countries in most cases don’t let kids enter into binding legal contracts, because they might get it wrong and we don’t want them to be liable for the consequences.
In other words, it’s precisely because they can’t be trusted to make the right choice that youth players need to have the freedom to move clubs. If you let them sign contracts, you’re not protecting them from autonomy, you’re just binding them to their first, possibly idiotic, exercise of it. I’m not sure how to make that any clearer.
Brian, Macheda ‘chose’ Man Utd over Lazio mostly because the former were able to offer him a contract and the Italian club could not. As you say yourself, Kakuta signed with Lens at 14 and with Chelsea at 16.
So 14 is wrong and 16 is okay?
I think the underlying issue here is that this is bad for football, because if Chelsea(or any other big clubs) can get these guys for free with no payment…why should Lens develop him. From what I understand, he started there when he was 9, and left when he was 16. There is no incentive to spend whatever it costs to train the kid for seven years if he can be gone for free at 16. Even Chelsea with their wealth of money cannot scout every 9 year old in Lens’ catchment area looking for kids like this, nor can they move every promising 9 year old and his folks they see from around the world to London.
Lens and clubs like them are therefore an important cog in the machine and one that has to be catered for.
I’m not sure if this ban is altogether fair although they probably deserve just based on the pure cheek of basically giving nothing for the kid. Why not bung them 5 mil or so and there would be no fuss..
It is clear however, that the differences in how each country treats youth players is a problem. I personally would be for freedom of movement at any time, with set fees for bringing youth players from other clubs. Those fees could be set at a level, where the kid would have to be world class to be considered. This could at a stroke stop clubs from bringing in legions of youngsters from abroad but at the same time give the very best the opportunity to move to the bigger pond.
Also, is a violinist worth a set value? When he moves conservatories is he worth nothing, then a year later(upon turning 17) he is worth millions? At that point, is he contracted to the second school and to move to another school he must command a fee or play out his contract?
The problem with the situation, is that footballers after 17/18 are saleable assets. It is not fair(or sustainable) for clubs to take a young player just before he becomes a saleable asset for nothing. It is like I have the right to get a meal in the restaurant for free if I put it on the plate. Obviously in that case there is no incentive for anyone to run or work in a restaurant under that situation.
What’s so wrong about prioritizing the leisure of fans before the welfare of individual players? We talk as though the players’ talents make them more important than the customer that pays their salary. Soccer players offer little benefit to humanity – their talent in life is kicking a small sphere for god’s sake! If players don’t like a system which turns their otherwise useless skill into one that makes millions and earns them virtually unlimited tail, they are free to apply their talents to any other profession (probably of the custodial variety). I could understand this “players come first” sentiment if soccer were vital to human existence or cultural growth, but the fact of the matter is, its just a leisure activity. Its patrons and supporters are the be-all and end-all for deciding what’s okay and what isn’t, and if a 14-year old doesn’t like the particular academy he’s contracted to, he always has the option of quitting and going to regular school like the mortal 99% of the planet.
Thanks Brian, good read!!
Brian, you make the same argument that I have been making.
There are some really ridiculous arguments on this website however.
The idea that the well-being of the sport should come before statutory human rights of children is nonsensical.
AlexZ wishes to belittle the social contribution of the footballer, to the extent that they should surrender legal rights (even though they are too young to enter into any such contract) that we as paying customers would never surrender to our employers or educational facilities.
Kakuta was a supposed party to the precontract at 14 years of age. There are arguments on this webpage that this is a legally binding document, and this is proven by FIFA’s action.
However just because FIFA have made the ruling or Lens assert a right over the player does not infer that either party have any reasonable standing in law.
At the end of the day, FIFA cannot harmonise contract law across jurisdictions, as to attempt to do so would put them in a situation of being liable under the law of torts.
For instance, if under a certain jurisdiction, a player had a legal right within that country to walk away from the contract, because it is seen to be a disguised employment contract and the player is recognised (statutorily) as an employee, then there will be nothing FIFA can do to stop them unilaterally cancelling their employment contract.
If FIFA then attempted to assert some punishment on the player, then the player would quite easily be able to argue that FIFA’s actions were tortious, and an attempt to deny legal rights to the player.
Legal harmonisation is simply not a possibility, and for FIFA to imagine that they stand on the same plinth as international law is to be self-deluded in the extreme.
They are sporting association – they have the same rights as the organisation of scientologists, international marxists, or international stamp collectors association.
The law and human rights of individuals, children in particular, is inviolable, and no organisation such as FIFA or Scientology can rewrite domestic law to suit their own agenda, nor enforce contracts which do not meet local standards without subjecting themselves to open risks of prosecution under the law of torts.
I wonder if the solution to this problem might be found in the past practices of the National Hockey League. Although not currently active, for years, the NHL had a transfer agreement with all of the other world leagues of the IIHF that standardizes Euro-to-North American transfers (In hockey, the NHL’s dominance is assumed pretty much to the same length as a Big Club’s is in football; generally a smaller team who has a player drafted is reconciled with relinquishing them).
By this agreement, a standard price was agreed for the transfer of a player whose NHL rights had been acquired by a team, basically a buy-out clause. Although Russia pulled out because it is lost its top tier talent for less than it could have got on the European market (Moscow would have received 400k for Alexander Ovechkin), this could work in football.
The player would have to agree to sign with the club, but then the selling club would need to be compensated. That way the protection against tapping-up is preserved, chairmen can’t hold up a buying club and disrupt a young player’s career, but they do get something out of the deal.
I think this might be better than just banning U18 transfers to help ensure fluidity to a player’s young career. Another measure that might be looked at as black magic, but is worth a thought, is standard youth contracts. That way, the “sack of cash” problem will be mitigated. Young player wages would be limited by the youth cap (which might be based on number of senior appearances or age or whatever), so players would be free to pick clubs based on prestige or playing time or whatever.
What I don’t understand is how you all are able to suppress your schadenfreude long enough to even discuss this rationally.
I, for one, am beginning to understand the appeal of Charlie Bronson movies.
Since when are contracts written in blood? When you break a contract you are not thrown to a ravenous pack of sharks in the Carribean, but pay equivalent monetary damages.
I am only troubled by precontracts because of slippery slope concerns – child labor is, well, child labor. Regardless of how much I love to watch really talented 17 year olds run around with 25 year olds, it makes me uncomfortable. Thats why I only watch Serie A.
However, I am a strong advocate for the freedom of labor to travel and obtain fair (or exorbitant) wages. If this kid was 18, then I would say – break the contract, pay damages, and move on. Surely Chelsea has enough pennies in the piggybank…
Yes footballing kids have rights, but this is a luxury industry with all the money at the top already. Your arguments are sincere and well meaning but completely unrealistic and unfair to small clubs. it’s not fair to treat all young players as Oliver Twist’s in the grip of a Fagin. Footballing authorities should have a responsibility to look after smaller clubs too, otherwise big teams could just hoover up all the talent. What would be the incentive for small teams developing players at all? How can you expect them to just roll over. Also I don’t believe it would be in the best interests of young footballers to relax the rules, look at Chelsea’s aggressive youth team recruitment under Frank Arensen, how many have even made it onto the bench? Imagine if the conditions for this behaviour were made easier and tacitly encouraged.
All the money at the top of the game means that the gulf is inexorably widening and the game is moving further away from it’s roots and this is sad. Every year in England more clubs go into administration whilst top clubs announce multi million pound profits, this is not a question of rights but of means. I believe it is vital that small clubs should be protected, if top clubs want the best youngsters then they should be made to pay for them. The idea of tuition fees doesn’t work because you cannot account for standards of training, as you say top clubs have the best facilities, what’s to stop small teams subsidising vast academies of their own on tribunal tuition fees.
Your argument seems to imply a romantic ideal, of everyone working together with pure hearts to ensure the best footballers are developed for art’s sake. This is unrealistic, everybody here has a vested interest.
“Regardless of how much I love to watch really talented 17 year olds run around with 25 year olds, it makes me uncomfortable. Thats why I only watch Serie A.”
Serie A–where the few 25 year olds run around exclusively with men over 30.
You want to be from Australia -we have been battling this for ages as the FFA are standing in the way of kids 16+ from taking up positions in UK clubs:
FFA Stance on FIFA Article 19 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer Policy of Players
FIFA Regulations governing the Status and Transfer of Players require National Associations to issue an International Registration Transfer Certificate for any player over the age of 12 who is moving from one National Association to another.
Article 19 was predominantly introduced to prevent the trafficking of young players from the African Continent and that this stance was required in a robust, rigorous and transparency to protect these minors. This in due course has led in International Transfer Clearances (ITC) to be considered on a non football related basis when families decide to move from one Country or Continent to another.
The FFA has had a “fair” approach to this rule or Article over the years which reflects in over 41 players born after 1989 playing in Europe and in excess of 150 senior players plying their trade but more recently have enforced it strictly and are flatly refusing an ITC to all applicants regardless of the strength and detail within their application. (List of current players listed below)
Young players with dual nationality are repeatedly being refused an International Transfer Clearance and are as such preventing those honoring scholarship contracts offered to them by clubs in the UK and Europe. We are not referring to minors such as 11 and 12 year olds as we think that everyone in football would agree that this age is too young for a minor to relocate to Europe unless the entire family is relocating but boys aged around 15 and 16+ but not yet 18, which if they were in Europe, would be allowed to freely move from one EU Country to another.
Regulations and guidelines issued by the English FA state:
A clearance will not normally be issued for a player under the age of 18 unless his family is moving for non-football reasons. Within the EU/EEA a player can move countries over the age of 16 subject to the labour laws of the country he is going to.
When an International Registration Transfer Certificate has been issued to this Association the Club and/or player will be notified by fax, telephone, e-mail or letter by the Registrations Department. Until notification has been received the player may NOT be registered or play for a Club in England at any level.
Such a player may NOT play in a competitive fixture at any level in England until an International TRANSFER CERTIFICATE has been received and registration has been accepted by a League and/or this Association. Letters from National Associations and Clubs are NOT sufficient to enable a player to play competitive football.
Some of these boys have been trialing and coached at world class academies in Europe and not back street types. These boys hold EU passports and have the right under EU Law to move freely within EU nations to undertake work and scholarships. The boys could become an apprentice plumber, bricklayers even join the Armed Forces and die in action but they cannot play football without the ITC!
We are not questioning the quality of facilities and coaching at the AIS, however, the AIS are restricted to 28 players.
Whilst the quality and number of qualified coaches has increased in Australia in recent times, all too often junior clubs rely on parents to coach their children and subsequently leads to parents seeking private tuition at their own expense at private academies to gain the level of coaching they desire and in order to enhance the skill and development of their dependant.
The Case of Alfie Littler
Alfie’s grandmother recently had a nasty fall (May 2009). Together with his mother and sister, they relocated to the UK to care for their family member. Alfie is 16 and a half and holds a UK Passport. This allows him to reside and work in the UK or an EU Country without the need for a visa, work permits etc. Alfie was offered an apprenticeship within the UK. Whilst in Australia, Alfie had played football and had trialed for the State Team at various levels but was never considered good enough to make the squad. He had to change clubs within the Brisbane area to get a game at the top youth level as again he was not considered good enough for his local club at this level.
Whilst in the UK, Alfie trialed with Scottish Division 2 side Cowdenbeath and was offered a scholarship whereby he would sign a 2 year contract with the said club. Part of this scholarship included a clause that Alfie had to attend further educational studies even though he has legally finished school at one of Brisbane’s exclusive schools John Paul College in Daisy Hill.
The Family applied to the FFA for an International Transfer Certificate which was based on the relocation for family reasons. Documentation included medical reports, proof of UK passport to name but a few all certified by a legal practitioner. The evidence and application is beyond doubt a clear case of relocating for reasons other than football.
The FFA have refused to issue the ITC based on the grounds that they claim Alfie has moved for footballing reasons? Paul’s solicitor has written to the FFA requesting clarification and reasons for the refusal. The family were to told by the FFA that they had to refer Alfie’s case direct with to FIFA for a decision to be made by means of an appeal. No decision has been made to date and young Alfie looks to lose his scholarship.
In response to Paul Littler, Alfie’s father, the FFA this week have responded with a case heard under FIFA by the Court of Arbitration for Sport which relates to a Danish Club and 6 young players from Nigeria. The Nigerians required visas, student visas and work permits etc to enter Denmark.
How on earth does this relate to a UK passport holder who has his football registration held by the FFA? What relevance is this to the application made by a British Family – they are not African but Dual Citizens of the UK and Australia who have relocated to the UK for reasons other than football? None whatsoever, there is no comparison in the applications and shows a lack of understanding and total disregard by the FFA for this family.
I have spoken on a daily basis to Paul Littler. He does not sleep anymore, his family plumbing business is suffering and he borders depression as he cannot understand or comprehend why the FFA are denying his family their rights as UK Citizens all because he played football in Australia as a junior. He is not under contract, is not in the AIS and has never represented his state let alone country at any level in football.
For the Littler family to legally challenge the FFA and FIFA will be expensive – an expense that Paul admits would be beyond the family unless a solicitor took the case on the basis of a test case against the FFA so where do they stand?
Alfie has made it clear that he does not want to return to Australia and threatened to tear up his passport. Unfortunately this will not make the FFA release the ITC. The family are in the hands of the FFA and FIFA and despite lobbying the FFA, FIFA etc no proper or detailed response has been received except stating the case of the Danish club and Nigerians and the fact that they do not think that the family have relocated to assist the grandmother despite providing all documentation stating the opposite. Local MP Barbara Stone is assisting the Littler family in trying to seek a logical reason on the FFA’s decision and has requested they reconsider the decision.
Double Standards
Dean Bouzanis* – Liverpool (reserves) – 2.10.90 / age 18 – goalkeeper
Goalkeeper Dean Bouzanis went to Anfield in the summer of 2007.
The shot-stopper arrived from the New South Wales Institute of Sport, though he was initially loaned to Sydney FC until his 17th birthday.
Why is this different to the current players seeking an ITC?
Dean actually attended the NSW Institute of Sport but was granted an ITC. The players currently being refused an ITC have not attended an Institute of Sport and most have not played representative games?
Concerns and the Future
The concern and main challenge to the recent enforcement of the Article 19 rule is in relation to dual Nationality families whereby a family holds not only an Australian Passport but also an EU Passport. As an EU passport holder you are free to move to a country such as the United Kingdom under Article 39 – Freedom of Movement of Workers of the EU Treaty at the age of 16.
If a person has dual Nationality then surely it is the family’s right to relocate and “migrant” workers and members of their families shall have the right to liberty of movement in the territory of the State or Country of employment and have the freedom to choose? It can be argued that the restriction is preventing an individual plying his or her trade in the EU as an EU Passport Holder.
Australia is made up of Migrants from all over the world. Many hold dual Nationality especially the European communities. Should one of these families return to their country of origin and apply for an ITC they have to apply stating (and prove 100%) the reasons for relocation and that the reason is not football.
Because the child of this family was signed to play football at a junior club within Australia, the FFA hold full power of release for this child to play anywhere else in the world between the ages of 12 and 18 even though they may not have played any representatives games for their country or State. Parents are not made aware that when they sign their child up at a club in Australia that the registration of that child is held by the FFA. Nowhere is this mentioned on any application or registration form.
Parents leave this country every day for better lives and or to better the lives of their dependants and to give those opportunities not readily available in Australia – and nobody can argue that they are wrong because they are not the parents.
People leave Australia to go to the USA because the tennis coaching might be better. People leave Australia because they might get better golfing lessons overseas. People leave Australia because their child is a talented violinist and they believe that the tutors in say Austria are better….Nobody stops these people and normally leave under the blessing of the Country as they will and do return to represent Australia at International level.
People also come to Australia all the time for better opportunities in our education system…..so the reverse holds true….
We understand the sensitivities and ramifications entrenched with the recruitment of players under the age of 18 to overseas clubs. In particular, we recognise the importance of retaining talent within Australia and ensuring that Australian football clubs that fund the development of players receive fair and just recompense for their efforts which in turn European clubs already do compensate Australian clubs in such cases.
In conflict to these considerations is that the perception that professional European clubs offer far more comprehensive player development systems that is generally offered locally in Australia which has been on numerous occasions reiterated by National and International coaches here.
Thus the prohibition against Australian players relocating overseas until they attain the age of 18 is prejudicial to their personal development and the future of Australian football. The biggest danger possibly faced by Australian football and in particular relation to those players holding dual nationality is that these players and families completely switch their nationality in order to play overseas which in turn could lead them not to qualify or wanting to gain representative honours at a national level in the future? These young players are the players who could be representing Australia in our World Cup in 2018 or 2022?
This of course may not deter the FFA in releasing the ITC required for players under the age of 18?
Football reasons or not, the legal guardian / parents have the right to do what they think is best for their child has been taken away by the FFA and of course FIFA.
If they were in Europe (again many of the parents and families involved hold EU passports) they would not have this problem and again the parents would be and are getting hateful of the FFA for not releasing their child and giving him the opportunity to play in the UK. What good is this doing the FFA? If they were in Europe they could move to Britain at the age of 16 for a scholarship and sign professional forms at the age of 17. This is European law.
Possible legal challenges to Article 19 could include:
Restriction of Movement
Under the Human Rights Committee, FIFA Article 19 could be legally challenged and could be deemed in violation of Article 13 – Right to Freedom of Movement and in particular;
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State.
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.
2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.
General Comment -27, Freedom of Movement – sixty seventh session 1999
Human Rights Committee, General Comment 27, Freedom of movement (Art.12),
U.N. Doc CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.9 (1999).
General
This document provides an in depth look at the freedom of movement, its ramifications and even its restrictions. The Committee stated that freedom of movement is indispensable for the free development of a person and that this right interacts with several others in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
This document states that all people shall have the freedom to choose where they reside.
They also have the right to leave any country they choose, including their own.
It lists restrictions that under exceptional circumstances that can potentially be placed on freedom of movement, and lastly, stipulates the right to enter one’s own country.
This “general comment” picks apart every section of article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, further examining it from a legal standpoint. This document is one of the main documents referred to when examining in depth the freedom of movement and its boundaries.
EC Nice Treaty Provisions
FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL
Chapter 1
Workers
Article 39 (ex Article 48)
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
2.. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:
(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;
(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;
(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;
(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this Article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
Comment
We are not going to state each and every paragraph from EC Nice treaty however as Dual Citizen’s who have chosen for whatever reason to return to Europe FIFA and the FFA could be challenged under these laws.
FFA/PFA Memorandum of Understanding and the Principles of Freedom of Movement
We also ask one other question in regards to page 2 of the FFA/PFA Memorandum of Understanding and the Principles of Freedom of Movement which includes “the principle of every player being able and free to maximise his or her potential and play at the highest levels in World Football for club and country is recognised.”
By restricting or not releasing an ITC, surely the FFA are in breach of this “understanding” as stated above?
European Based players Born 1989 and after.
* signifies players of dual citizenship – Australian and EU Country
Dean Bouzanis* – Liverpool (reserves) – 2.10.90 / age 18 – goalkeeper
Chris Herd – Aston Villa (reserves) – 4.4.89 / age 20 – right back / central midfielder
Shane Lowry* – Aston Villa (reserves) – 12.6.89 / age 20 – centre back
Aaron Mooy – Bolton (reserves) – 15.9.89 / age 18 – midfielder
Ryan Gazet Du Chattelier – Portsmouth (reserves) – 17.2.91 / age 18 – striker
Daniel Ireland – Coventry City – 30.9.90 / age 18 – goalkeeper
James Wesolowski – Leicester City – 25.8.87 / age 21 – midfielder
Alex Cisak – Leicester City – 19.5.89 / age 20 – goalkeeper
Bradden Inman* – Newcastle (reserves) – 9.12.91 / age 17 – striker
Robert Stambolziev* – Bristol City (academy) – 26.10.90 / age 18 – forward
Matthew Pike* – West Bromwich (academy) – 3.9.90 / age 18 – N/A
Jack Watts – Barnsley (academy) – 1.6.91 / age 18 – forward
Mitchell Austin – Rotherham United (academy) – 3.4.91 / age 18 – midfielder
James Meredith – York City – 4.4.88 / age 21 – defender
Kyle Nix* – Mansfield Town – 21.1.86 / age 23 – left midfielder
Blue Square South (6)
Mitchell Nicholson – Dorchester Town – 13.4.90 / age 19 – midfielder
Blue Square North (6)
Cameron Jones – Tamworth FC – 23.11.89 / age 19 – striker
Serie B (2)
Christian Esposito* – Albinoleffe – 23.7.90 / age 18 – striker
Adrian Ucchino – Frosinone – 4.10.91 / age 17 – N/A
Serie D Girone B (5)
Domenico Marafioti – AS Pro Belvedere – 27.9.90 / age 18 – N/A
Eccellenza (6)
Julien Willy Cannizzaro – Petacciato (on loan from Pro Vasto) – age 18 – defender
Massimo Mesisca – ASD Valfabrica – 18.7.89 / age 20 – N/A
Prima Categoria (8)
Robert Sciascia – AC Crema – 23.7.88 / age 20 – midfielder
Spain
Primera Liga (1)
Theo Markelis – Valencia (academy) – 24.6.92 / age 17
Peter Cvetanovski – Mönchengladbach II – 23.7.89 / age 19 – defender
James Holland – AZ Alkmaar – 15.5.89 / age 20 – midfielder
James Troisi – Kayserispor – 3.7.88 / age 21 – midfielder / left winger
Greece
Greek Super League (1)
Nathan Burns – AEK Athens – 7.5.88 / age 21 – attacking midfielder / striker
Beta Ethniki (2)
Apostoli Giannou* – Apollon Kalamarias – 25.1.90 / age 19 – striker
Andreas Govas* – Apollon Kalamarias – 21.7.89 / age 19 – midfielder
Christos Tomaras – Apollon Kalamarias – 14.1.89 / age 20 – N/A
Kosta Mantis – Niki Agathios – 15.2.91 / age 18 – midfielder
Scotland and EU Countries
Ryan McGowan – Hearts – 15.8.89 / age 19 – centre back / central midfielder
Matthew Park – Hearts – 22.4.88 / age 21 – left back / left midfielder
Dylan McGowan – Hearts (academy) – 6.8.91 / age 17 – centre back / central midfielder
Rocky Visconte – Hearts (academy) – 22.4.90 / age 19 – left midfielder
Brynn Hindley – Dundee United (academy) – 9.4.91 / age 18 – goalkeeper
Brent McGrath – Brøndby IF (under-19s) – 18.6.91 / age 18 – striker
Daniel Georgievski* – Medimurje (loan from Dinamo Zagreb) – 17.2.88 / age 21 – midfielder
Ante Cicak – GOSK AC – 30.6.90 / age 19 – defender
Daniel Carter – 30.8.90 / age 18 – right back
Adrian Davies – I find it absolutely repugnant and utterly immoral.
The FFA may assert whatever they might, but surely it is the local Football Association as an EU compliant organisation that must be compelled to allow the registration of the player.
Or else they will certainly be liable to criminal and personal damages as a legal entity which deprives the player of their rights under the EU Nice Treaty Provisions.
I wouldn’t bother with the FFA as they have no need to comply with EU legislation.
The FA and FIFA are the legally liable actors, and FIFA, the FFA are simply operating within their boundaries.
One thing that I would wish however is a large degree of publicity for this case, where are the websites, the push in the press, this is the first time I’ve heard of this.
This blog post must have had a heap of hits and your comment is one of the most compelling things I have read on the entire matter.
How on earth can FIFA presume to act so illegally and selectively prevent the training or employment of EU citizens within their own country?
How could they possibly believe that holding minors to non-legally binding contracts will be anything by tortious?
If find it a gross and obvious violation of the rights of these children.
adrian@dfsports.com.au
Press releases, 442 Australian Magazine, forums, letters to MP’s, Governing Bodies etc and still nothing.
Here are some links of what is happening.
http://www.theroar.com.au/2009/06/05/reece-caira-blocked-by-ffa/
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/a-league/ffa-to-fight-16yearolds-case-before-fifa-in-bid-to-end-exodus-ofjuniors/2009/05/28/1243456683541.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/sport/football/ffa-fights-for-african-new-wave/2009/03/19/1237055001316.html
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25883345-5003412,00.html
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/magazine-currentissue.aspx
Only a couple – do a google search on the subject – it is a disgrace. There are no apprenticeships here and the boys need the opportunity to further their careers. Going over at 18 and 19 is simply too late.
Any publicity in the UK would also help. We tend to go on deaf ears here and even the PFA are defending the FFA???
It is heartbreaking for the parents of these players – they are not 10 or 12 year olds but boys who have left school but cannot play in the UK. They can join the army, become a plumber but cannot kick a ball even for a village team.
It is the FFA who issue the ITC.
When a player turns 12 and signs on for his local junior team, he is registered with the FFA. This is not mentioned anywhere on any registration form. Once they have signed, that is it they are at the mercy of the FFA and come October FIFA.
Alfie Littler is de-registered with his club and Football Brisbane who run the league but still cannot get an ITC? Cowdenbeath will now offer the scholarship to somebosy else and Alfie is left with nothing. He does not want to return to Australia – can you blame him?
Actually I think it highly unlikely that a “pre-contract” is enforceable until the player reaches 16. Otherwise it would not be called a “pre” contract, it would be called a “contract”. So I think Chelsea’s appeal is very likely to succeed. FIFA have simply got the law wrong.
The other question is whether under 16s should be able to sign binding contracts. I don’t see why not, subject to agreement of parents/guardians/independent legal advice.
In other words, what is wrong is not that he had contract when he shouldn’t have done. What is wrong is that he didn’t have a contract when he should have done.
I think you state the case for the transfer of young talent to where it’s best developed.
But that’s just one side of the story. Moralty is one thing, legality is another.
Every system exists with it’s rules. The rules are that clubs have to be compensated for players they developed.
Every single club in the world has to play by the rules. Chelsea always thought themselves above this simple principle and they have rightly gotten burnt.
Arsenal have snapped up 10 to 15 kids from all over the world. Why are they not being reported to FIFA and facing a transfer ban? Because they always compensate the clubs, and make sure they come to an agreement.
Chelsea blew Lens off, and it’s hard to argue this wasn’t unscrupulous.
To Julis Bloomfield;
In many countries, pre-contracts of all types are perfectly enforceable. They’re in no way incompatible with European law.
Ole Gunner, your statements are simply incompatible with any reasonable principle of human rights.
For anyone to be bound to a precontract agreement, they cannot be a legal actor if they are not of legal age.
That simply leaves their parents as the actors.
However it is incompatible with any form of natural justice that a parent would be able to sign away the servitude of their underage children – particularly from an age where they were not of legal age, up until and past and age where they were of legal age.
According to you, a parent may sell their child into indefinite slavery to clean my kitchen until old age.
Maybe you would make the argument that the contract would only be valid if it were for a limited duration, say 3 years.
In which case I can recycle my galley of underage slaves for 3 year cycles, bringing new ones in and paying unscrupulous parents?
I see you wish to make this a Chelsea vs Arsenal thing?
You are frankly not qualified to talk on the matter if you distil it down to tribal loyalties.
Brett Cox,
You’ve mixed up two separate issues.
There is the issue of whether pre-contracts are binding which someone raised.
There is the issue of whether minors should work.
Then there is a mixed up agglomeration of the two which you are addressing.
As far as I can tell, European law states the earliest age at which a child can sign legal work contracts. Various countries also regulate this.
There is no indication that the practice of signing pre-contracts (When you’re a certain age we’ll offer you a contract, to which the kid consents) is incompatible with French or European Law. If it is, Chelsea has the means to get a court to weigh in.
So as it stands, the law as has been applied in France is that pre-contracts are binding. All people who want to deal, have to either play by the rules, or fight to change the rules.
No club has the right to simply choose to not play by the rules.
If Chelsea had a human rights case against French law and practice on pre-contracts, the courts were available. They would surely strike down a practice you describe without equivocation as being “incompatible with any reasonable principle of human rights”. Wouldn’t they?
Which leads perfectly into the other issue. Chelsea has been a bad actor in the transfer sphere. I assume I don’t have to read off the numerous episodes.
It is clear that the club plays loose with the rules. Not everything has been illegal. Some of the illegal ones are borderline acceptable (like tapping-ups), and some of their legal dealings have been unscrupulous (like simply going after Manchester United & Arsenal targets and paying double the going rate).
However strong might be the legal advice Chelsea relied on in the Kakuta case, it is clear that they have taken an asset that Lens believed belonged to them and have not paid just compensation.
If they had, there would have been no case presented to FIFA, and there would have been no ban. That much is clear.
I say that as a football fan, and as an adult with enough experience in life.
I am an Arsenal fan, and I do detest the way Chelsea have dealt in transfers, but I am sure it’s objectively detestable.
I do agree with the crux of what Brian Philips wrote.
A ban on U-18 transfers would be ridiculous for example. And I strongly disagree with both sides making exaggerated claims of child trafficking or child bondage.
Whatever the law says, Chelsea would have been gutted if Liverpool had taken a 16 year old John Terry. They would have wanted compensation.
Terry & his parents would have been within their rights to move to Liverpool if that afforded the kid a better chance to fulfil his potential.
I think both of these principles are compatible in a world of common sense and bona fides.