Football: more than the one percent

Last month, FIFPro, the World Players’ Union, launched a legal challenge to football’s current transfer system.

It could not have gone public at a more apt time. With the January transfer window now open and chatter about incredulous player moves in the air, the body can prove their point.

The next 20-odd days may provide entertainment for football fans, but it will serve to further expose the monopolistic nature of the current game.

Robert Lewandowski’s deal to move to an increasingly powerful Bayern Munich in June is just one case in point.

Oft, the reality of football is lost in the whirlwhind of big money transfers and high profile players.

Young players yearn for the adulation, wealth and success that is clearly visible for elite footballers. Rightly so, striving for the top should be encouraged and supported.

But for every Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi, there are 100 struggling professionals battling with the dark side of football – failing to have contracts honoured. It is more than a football issue, it is a human rights issue.

Those we see on the big screen are merely the 1%.

FIFPro has engaged in a plan that aims to ensure a player cannot unfairly have their contract terminated, must be paid on time and has greater power in their ability to move.

Those  may seem like simple working conditions that we “ordinary” Australians expect as a minimum, but poor governance has meant they are not guarantees for footballers.

Of FIFPro’s 65,000 members, 3000 or more are forced to take their case to FIFA after having their club dispense of them thoughtlessly. The situation is particularly damaging in Indonesia where players are reported to have gone up to 10 months without being paid.

In 2001, an informal agreement was struck between the European Commission, FIFA and UEFA which was due to have allowed players to terminate their own contract after a protected period of two years for players aged over 28 and three years for younger players.

That was set to be reviewed after 10 years. 13 years on and greater protection for players has not yet been achieved. Although fans see players as higher beings, the fact is that they are people simply trying to make a living.

Chairman of FIFPro Division Asia/Oceania, Brendan Schwab, has been heavily involved in attempting to improve rights for players and is adamant the legal challenge is necessary.

“You have a situation where players who unilaterally terminate their contract, even though they are entitled to do that, are subject to multi-million dollar claims,” Schwab told The Roar.

“That’s clearly something we feel violates their human rights. The issue to focus on is the principle of stability of contract, that’s the critical issue at the moment.

“It’s very important to remember that unfortunately when most fans think of a professional footballer, they think of those who are remunerated at a very high level such as a Ronaldo or a Messi. We represent 65,000 players. Most of these players earn what ordinary employees earn and they have a career that is short term and precarious. As a result, they are entitled to have a contractual  situation which is stable.

“At the moment the contractual system is unstable, where we have a huge  problem with clubs failing to pay players and the economics of football being such that the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and there is no sporting balance, which is one of the major reasons for the transfer system in the first place.”

FIFPro have no plans to force clubs to relinquish all control of when a player leaves. The aim is a mutually-binding contract that sticks.

“If the clubs want to sit down and say we want players to honour contracts, we say that’s fine, but we want clubs to do so as well,” Schwab added.

“We want a reciprocal system, there needs to be the same consequences for clubs and players where there is a breach of the contract and at the moment there isn’t.

“At the moment a player is seriously punished, he may well be economically ruined if he walks away from a contract, but there is a far greater problem in football and that is that if a club walks away from a contract, they’re subject to no sanction or financial compensation and that devastates players economically and means the stability of contract does not exist.

“That’s the law of Europe – that players have freedom to move out of contract and they have reasonable freedom to move inside of contract. We don’t want any greater freedom to terminate a contract than what the clubs do, we want the same rights. And at the moment it’s very unbalanced.  If clubs are able to sign players to contracts and then demand incredible transfer fees then the whole competitive balance within the world is destroyed.”

Closer to home, there has been an abundance of debate around the future of Mitch Nicholls, who is being hotly pursued by J-League outfit Cerezo Osaka. Although many have argued that Melbourne Victory are damaging Nicholls’ chances of career progression, Kevin Muscats’ side are entitled to reject the offer – believed to be around $350,000 now.

What Schwab and FIFPro recommend is a transfer clause in every player’s contract that would allow them to move on request if that is triggered by another club.

Such was the case for former Sydney FC striker Alex Brosque, who required the Arbitration of Sport to confirm the transfer clause in his contract meant the A-League club could not prevent him moving to Shimizu S-Pulse after they were offered the maximum transfer fee.

Further justification for FIFPro’s challenge is the case of Socceroo Mark Bresciano, who only last night successfully appealed the four-month ban he received for his transfer to Qatari club Al-Gharafa and was cleared for the World Cup.

Schwab, who was in contact with Bresciano on Monday, insists the fight the midfielder was faced with proves there is much still to be done..

“Mark’s case highlights the imbalance. He had a clause in his contract with the UAE club (Al-Nasr) that said he can terminate his contract and if so there is an amount of compensation that would be paid to the club,” he said.

“There was some arguable ambiguity in that clause and as a result of that the player has been subject to a four month ban, and the imposition of a seven figure compensation amount, which will ultimately be paid by the Qatari club.

“But had the opposite occurred, had the UAE club just torn up the contract then there would be no sporting sanctions on the club and the amount of compensation would be much much less.

“That’s the grave imbalance in the system and if people in football are serious about contracts  being honoured, they must be honoured by clubs as well as players and that’s a very important part of the way FIFPro is approaching it.

“Mark had a right to terminate, the issue just comes down to the compensation between the UAE club and Qatari club. If there was to be a dispute, there is no reason that should impact the player’s ability to play the game.”

In an ideal world, FIFPro will achieve a change to the current laws surrounding player movement, prohibit clubs from not paying players and provide more sustainable plans for life after football. It promises to be a lengthy, but necessary, process.

Just as fans despise being treated like customers, players have the right not to be just another item on the shelf.