The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Why Chelsea's ban fits the crime

Roar Rookie
4th September, 2009
7

On Thursday 5 September, FIFA’s Dispute Resolution Chamber ruled that Chelsea had illegally encroached upon Gael Kakuta from Lens. As a result, Chelsea have a substantial fine to pay. But, most significantly, they are banned from bringing in any players until 1 January 2011.

Only those closely involved in the case can say for certain what has occurred (and they will say it with self-bias until the case has been settled), so what is coming from me is purely speculation.

The FIFA statement says: “The DRC found that the player had indeed breached a contract signed with the French club. Equally, the DRC deemed it to be established that the English club induced the player to such a breach.”

Now, from my understanding, this is very much different to the tapping up sagas that Chelsea and other clubs have been involved with in the past. A prime example brought up is the issue of Ashley Cole.

Whilst Ashley Cole wanted to leave Arsenal, there was a deal involved that mutually benefited both clubs. Arsenal received William Gallas and $5m in return for Cole, and there was no real “breach of contract”.

The difference in the Kakuta case, so it seems, is that Chelsea illegally approached the player (as in the Cole case), but instead of organizing a transfer fee for the player, Chelsea got the player for either a nominal fee, or a free transfer.

My initial thoughts are that the breach of contract in this case involve the player simply quitting his job after signing an extended contract, then no sooner than that happened, Chelsea signed him on the basis that he was a free agent.

If this was allowed to happen at the higher levels of the game, a comparable example would be Sergio Aguero “retiring” from Atletico Madrid instead of seeing his contract out, only to be signed by Chelsea a month later because he is a free agent.

Advertisement

The only difference between these cases is that Aguero is older, and he is more well known. The argument that it involves a young player is an irrelevant one. Such a breach should be equally punishable, whether it involves the best players in the world, or future prospects.

If this was allowed to happen, it would reek havoc on the entire transfer system. Clubs would not get any money for developing players, and the entire system would break down.

Because of the severity of such an incident, a severe punishment is much deserved.

It is vital that an example is made of Chelsea, and a fine would simply not hurt them with their billions of dollars. Fines, as a result of sanctions or law suits, can be issued to lower clubs, as it hurts them more.

The prime example is West Ham United, who almost went into administration as a result of the Carlos Tevez affair, and due to the bankruptcy of the former chairman, are still ruing reckless things done in the past.

But, lets face it, Chelsea will appeal the ban, it will be reduced to a single transfer window ban in January, and ultimately the punishment will not hurt Chelsea too much.

Regardless, it was important that FIFA impose such a sanction on Chelsea, to set an example to the big clubs of Europe about poaching younger players through illegal means.

Advertisement
close