Alex Brosque allowed to leave Sydney FC
An independent arbiter has ruled Sydney FC striker Alex Brosque can leave the A-League club and take up a two-year contract worth $1.5m, with Japanese side Shimizu S-Pulse.
Sydney last week refused to allow the Socceroos striker to depart, claiming a clause in his contract stating he could leave should an offer be received from an overseas club, was null and void after he signed a new deal at the start of the season.
However Brosque claimed he was still playing under the terms of his old agreement, with his new deal not kicking-in until April 1.
A meeting between the two parties last Thursday failed to resolve the situation.
With the backing of the Professional Footballers Association chief Brendan Schwab, Brosque then took the unprecedented step of going to arbitration on Friday at Football Federation Australia’s Sydney headquarters.
Schwab and his legal team put Brosque’s case to Peter Kite SC, who was the appointed arbiter by the FFA, under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement with A-League players, in a three-hour hearing.
Kite ruled in favour of the 27-year-old on Monday, and a delighted Schwab said the decision demonstrated how important it was for his members to have access to arbitration to solve contractual issues.
“We welcome the decision although we were confident the we’d get a ruling in Alex’s favour and we’re very pleased that we did so,” Schwab told AAP.
“Alex felt he had the right to have the matter arbitrated and we are pleased that we did it without having to go through the courts … and we are pleased that Sydney FC have effectively accepted the umpire’s decision.”
The A-League champions’ vice-chairman Scott Barlow last week accused Shimizu of breaching FIFA regulations, claiming the J-League side held discussions with Brosque in Sydney several months ago.
Kite did not have the jurisdiction to hear arguments in relation to an alleged breach by the Shizuoka-based side, who finished sixth in last-year’s J-League, but Barlow insists the club will file a complaint with FIFA.
“Sydney FC considers itself to be an advocate for clubs, in particular A-League clubs, standing up for themselves and their beliefs and not bowing to the demands of cashed-up clubs from around the world who’ve acted outside FIFA regulations,” Barlow said in a statement.
“The club strongly believes it was right with the decisions it made and stands by them.
“For Sydney FC, it was always a matter of principle and acting professionally.
“Alex Brosque has been a great servant to Sydney FC. We wish him all of the best for the future and hope to welcome him back one day.”
Meanwhile on Monday, Newcastle midfielder Ryan Griffiths received a two-match ban from the the independent match review panel for using foul and abusive language towards referee Chris Beath.
The decision followed his send-off for dissent in the A-League match against Wellington on Sunday which his side lost 1-0.
© AAP 2013
Passionate about your football? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily football email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (3) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- A-League, Alex Brosque, football, J League, Shimizu S-Pulse
February 1st 2011 @ 2:41pm
andy g said | February 1st 2011 @ 2:41pm | Report comment
im confused… the arbitor found that the get out clause concerning overseas clubs in his old cobtract is still valid… ignoring the fact that brosque still has a contract. even if the arbitor is of the view that it doesnt take effect until april, the fact that a contract exists past april without that clause suggests to me that tbe second contract should be honored.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
February 1st 2011 @ 4:06pm
Matsu said | February 1st 2011 @ 4:06pm | Report comment
The reason youre confused is that Sydney FC has been talking out of . . . well . . . the wrong end of their digestive tract, and the result is that nobody seems to understand how contract law applies on the issue. To be honest, every single public statement that the Sydney side has released has blown my mind, because not only are some of the things they claim contradicted by every bit of evidence available; some of them dont even sound like these guys understand the law.
I wont go into every detail because some of it is discussed in comments to a separate thread. However as your specific question applies, it is not possible to have two contracts that invalidate one another. The “buyout” clause of the first contract (though I dont know the exact wording) says something like this: “if, at any time during the course of this contract, another club comes along and is willing to pay X dollars to Sydney, then all of Alex’s commitments to the club will be considered null and void.”
Sydney is claiming that even though the new contract doesnt become operative until April, it somehow negates the above clause. That isnt possible. If they signed a contract that said such a thing, it would have to contain language SPECIFICALLY nullifying the previous contract, and also indicating what Alex’s status would be between last July and this April, when the new contract begins. Though Im not a lawyer, I know enough about contract law to wonder what on earth Sydney was talking about when they said the previous contract wasnt valid. If it wasnt valid, then what basis do they have for claiming that Alex Brosque is currently a member of their team? If Sydney had wanted to negate the buyout clause, there was a simple way for them to do that – Make a four-year contract with Brosque that dissolved and superseded the old contract. They didnt do that. And surely they have enough lawyers on staff to understand the implications.
In any event, the arbitrator took one look at the contracts, told Sydney “who do you think youre kidding?”, and ruled in favour of Brosque. The new contract never became valid. Its valid exercise period did not begin until April, and circumstances changed prior to April which invalidated the contract.
Look . . . if (god forbid) Alex had died before April, Syndey would not have had to go through with the three-year contract, because one party to the contract was not present to fulfill the particulars on the date that the contract was exercised. Its such a basic point of contract law.
If you want to understand this case, heres the best way to start:
Forget everything you have heard from Syndey FC, up to this point (or assume that it is unvarnished balderdash). Once you do that, everything will become a lot clearer.
February 1st 2011 @ 8:41pm
jupiter53 said | February 1st 2011 @ 8:41pm | Report comment
Thanks for the explanation; it seems to make sense.
I must say as a Sydney fan how disappointed I am that he is going. Ever since he arrived he has been a reason to attend games even when the team has been playing miserably. But great for him; should be set financially for life. I wish him all the best.