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.
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.
pernunz
Roar Rookie
People have said kicking Chelsea out of the Champions League is an appropriate punishment. I'm not entirely sure what kind of jurisdiction FIFA has, but you think that they would have to consult UEFA on the matter, in order for such a punishment to be enforced. The banning of Juventus from the Champions League was alright, as the draw and preliminary qualifying rounds had not occurred, but if Chelsea were to be banned this season from the Champions League, how do you decide who takes their place? Would it be a side from England who has already qualified for the Europa League? One of the qualifiers who got knocked out? Even then, how do you decide which team gets the second chance. You can't say FIFA are forcing transfer prices up, because Chelsea will buy players, because they would have done that anyway. The only difference now is Chelsea won't be in the market for (one or) two transfer windows. In theory, that should lower the transfer prices in the next two transfer windows, but it won't, and the sudden emergence of Chelsea as a spending club is nothing different to Florentino Perez or Sheik Mansour taking over Real Madrid and Manchester City respectively. I also think that talking of FIFA artificially increasing transfer prices with respect to Chelsea is a huge contradiction, when you look at the likes of their spending in the past. Andrei Shevchenko is a prime example of Chelsea inflating the transfer market by paying way over the top for a player.
Art Sapphire
Guest
The tawdry facts speak for themselves. From the Guardian 1. Speaking to the French newspaper L'Equipe, the Lens chairman Gervais Martel said: "The decision was expected. The boy was under contract and they came to steal him from us ... Chelsea behaved in an unacceptable way in contacting the player before he was even 16 years old and while he was still being nurtured by us as he had been since the age of eight and a half. He had the standard French-style training contract with us." 2. The furore over the case is also likely to lead to renewed calls for an overhaul of the domestic regulations governing the transfer of players from lower league clubs to their Premier League counterparts. "The reason you operate an academy is to retain those players. For a transfer system to work, you need three willing parties – the buyer, the seller and the player. If one of those parties isn't willing, there is a problem," said Leeds United's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, who eventually settled for a reported £5m in compensation over Chelsea's disputed signing of two of its academy players, Michael Woods and Tom Taiwo, in 2006. "I think a lot more needs to be done and I think people appreciate that. I hope this decision is a catalyst for that to happen. This was a case that crossed international boundaries but I think the FA should be encouraged to look at it again on a domestic level."
Colin N
Guest
But signing a 'mere child' isn't against the rules, it's what they did which was. However, morality isn't in the rule book, so it shouldn't have an effect on the overall decision.
AndyRoo
Roar Guru
What I find interesting was that Lens don't seem to be reciving a penalty for their "pre contract contract" which the player agreed to before he was allowed to sign a contract. what's the point of a min age if all it means is the contracts just have adifferent name.
Viscount Crouchback
Guest
This sanction is entirely appropriate. The point the above contributors have omitted to mention is that young Kakuta was a mere child when he was lured away from Lens. English clubs have been doing this for nigh on a decade: enticing impressionable youngsters from European clubs and persuading their greedy and gullible parents that the hefty wages they are prepared to pay will somehow compensate for the trauma of being ripped from their natural environment. For every Fabregas or Macheda who makes it, there are another ten young children who don't make it. They are then left to fend for themselves without qualifications in their country of origin. It is simply unconscionable. The selfish and amoral behaviour of the top English clubs is a blight on the world game and it is a delight to see Fifa and Uefa taking them on.
Colin N
Guest
"If this was allowed to happen, it would reek havoc on the entire transfer system." But it has happened before, TWICE. The most well known being Roma, who, in the process of signing Philip Mexes, broke similar rules, and were banned for two transfer windows, reduced to one on appeal. Surely that would be a more appropriate sanction?
Freud of Football
Roar Guru
The crime really doesn't fit the punishment in this case, it's way too harsh. Chelsea are dodgy with their business side of things but this is FIFA really going too far. There are various other things that should have been looked at such as a points deduction or being kicked out of the CL as these would not only impact on the club financially but on the whole prestige of their organisation. To ban the club from acquiring new players is simply wrong. Chelsea may have a wonderful youth setup which they have more or less bought but they also have an ageing squad which will need to be gradually reinvigorated. To deny them the chance to make any purchases is forcing them into a spending spree when they are again allowed to transfer players and we will have another of these summers where one club floods the market and hence player fees go through the roof, the same as this year where Cristiano Ronaldo's transfer has thrown the whole system out of whack only FIFA are forcing this on the world with their decision.