The death of the transfer fee?

The death of the transfer fee?
0

#1

FIFPro, the body that represents professional footballers, is mounting a legal challenge to the transfer fee system. If successful, transfer fees could be abolished.

Huge game changer if successful, but this is coming from the same guys that bought us Bosman. Just because it seems crazy doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

Saints-wise, surely a bad thing overall. We’ll lose our players, as per, just potentially without the massive cash injection.


#2

Love the fact that they claim the transfer system puts all the power in the hands of the elite clubs as they are the only ones who can afford the big fees.What a load of bollocks. So the big clubs won’t use the money they save to pay bigger wages then. Thought not.

As if pro footballers are hard done by and under paid.


#3

and full on belly laugh at the fact players will respect their contracts.

Ironically the transfer fee is the only weapon the smaller clubs have in forcing players to respect their contract


#4

All a bit one sided and vague it seems. The argument is that the transfer system is unfair to players, compared to “normal” workers. The new vision suggests players will still have contracts, with all the protection and guarantees that these provide (which normal workers do not enjoy), but somehow there will not be any compensation to a club if a player breaks that contract. No explanation of why this is. Will it work both ways, i.e. can a player who is injured, or ill, or out of form, be terminated mid contract without any compensation? Somehow I doubt it.

As for the loan system being unfair on players, dont get me started. Nuts


#5

To be honest he does make a lot of sense.

He does say that a player would have to pay up the remainder of his contract if he breaches it, so I suppose that is some sort of incentive not to, especially if they are on a larger wedge.

As for the loan system, I don’t think he really says it is unfair on players, I think he is saying it is unfair on the samller teams. He uses city having a squad of 90 players as an example! They hoover up the best (young) players, stops the other teams getting them, and then farm them out on loan. If they play well at the other club then they are brought back to the parent club as a ready made player (Courtois is a a good example of this). Win win for the big clubs!

I shudder to think of what impact it may have on the smaller clubs in the PL but overall I think he makes a fair point.


#6

Interesting issue. Would that mean footballers would end up being paid even more? Perhaps we ought to think about a franchise system as you have in the States with players being spread a bit more evenly around. It would make the competition fairer. Transfer fees have been ridiculous for a few years now (as have wages of course). Whatever happens there should be more done in terms of financial fair play. I dont really know what that is though.

Andf yes, the loan system is totally nuts.


#7

The loan system is an easy fix - just limit it to 5 outwards loans per season. Job done.


#8

The loan system has plenty of benefits though. Obviously works for getting players some game time when they are otherwise out of favour, or not needed. see Nathan Dyer at Villa. Or Toby for us last season. Clubs and players get to “try before you buy” - e.g Toby again, or Elia. And players who have been injured need to step away from the parent club for a period. Lastly, players like Sam Gallagher benefit from first team action at a lower level, aiding their development.

I understand the point that if loans are not permitted, the likes of City, Chelsea etc will have to think much harder before adding to their squads. But the Nathan Dyer or Toby examples are of players formerly in the first team, sometimes for several seasons, who then need to find a starting spot elsewhere without necessarily needed a permanent move (yet).


#9

This sounds like a North American franchise move. The sad part is that it doesn’t come with the salary caps and level playing field that Hockey, American Football e.t.c do.

Players are paid well, there is a salary cap to level the playing field which prevents certain teams who are financial more successful than others completely dominating the sport (wouldn’t that be nice and far more interesting?) and when a players contract is up then he’s free to negotiate with others should he wish. Of course player development is far less of a deal in the NHL/NFL etc. If you suck you automatically get a good pick from the next draft which, with the academy system, won’t work. I don’t see Saints being willing to give up their best youngsters to the worst teams in the PL. It would throw up an interesting relegation debate too, there’s none of that in franchise sports.

In theory it’s great, in practice and in the modern premier league (read $$$$$$), I can’t see it flying.


#10

This idea would make Saint’s Academy pointless, surely?


#11

This would cause massive upheaval in the game if implemented. We would certainly need to look at a different business model, but at the same time, there is an opportunity to be a beneficiary. It’ll be a long time before we spend 50m in today’s money on a new player.

One way for clubs like us to survive might be a development fee, a career long percentage payment, paid by the player in proportions to the clubs they played for. Under such a system. we’d lose players like Bale, sure - but they’d need to sort us out for the opportunity we’ve given them.

As an idea on its own, I just can’t see “no transfer fees” working. There will be zero incentive to develop players if they can just leave for Big Club United on their 18th birthday, having spent the last 9 years or whatever at Saints’ academy. Transfer and tribunal fees have historically represented “development time”. The clubs will need something in return or the whole thing will fall down.


#12

Originally posted by @Sadoldgit

Interesting issue. Would that mean footballers would end up being paid even more?

I imagine that’s the general idea.