Soccer targets golden goal as transfer talks enter extra time

Date: 08/02/01

By Peter Chapman

Football clubs across Europe are waiting anxiouslyas the game's power brokers work out a deal which will revolutionise the business of player transfers.

It's been a long, drawn-out match and the outcome will be as crucial to the likes of Manchester United, Juventus and Anderlecht as the cash-strapped majority which must sell to survive.

European Commission officials are due to meet the football authorities next Friday (16 February) in a bid to produce a result.

Competition chief Mario Monti kicked off the controversy last summer when he served notice that the transfer system imposed by soccer's world governing body, FIFA, ignored EU rules on the free movement of workers.

The Union's anti-trust striker said it was unthinkable that 'arbitrary' fees could be charged by clubs before allowing a player to ply his trade elsewhere - even if he had served the notice required under local laws.

The resulting crisis has reverberated from the highest to lowest echelons of the game. Elite teams such as Manchester United face the possibility that the value of expensively-acquired stars such as goalkeeper Fabien Barthez - a €12 million buy from Monaco - would plummet overnight.

But most exposed were the clubs outside the soccer jet-set - already grappling with the 1995 'Bosman' ruling which allows players to change teams without a fee at the end of their contracts.

Without the income from transfer fees, clubs across the Union would probably end up in the soccer graveyard, buried under a growing pile of debt.

The problem is clear, says Andy Williamson, director of competition at the English Football League, which runs the top level of the game below the Premiership. Transfer income, he argues, often plugs the gap between operating losses - which are the norm for most clubs and the break-even point.

"Over the last nine years, 27% of football clubs' turnover has come from their transfer receipts," says Williamson. "Transfer fees maintain the interests of people putting money into football. If they disappear that means less money would be put into the game. Those clubs that did survive would have to consider becoming a one-team outfit with no youth development."

The negotiations are complex. As well as the conflicting vested interests of the 'football family', Monti's counterparts in charge of sport and employment - Viviane Reding and Anna Diamantopoulou - are also involved in a debate which has at times resembled a bitterly-fought local derby match.

Despite a well-publicised split last month, FIFA and its European counterpart UEFA are back on the same side and hopes are high of a deal emerging in the run up to next week's showdown with the Commission.

There is broad agreement that the transfer code should compensate teams responsible for nurturing young players before they move to bigger clubs - even at the end of their contracts.

But serious doubts remain over attempts to inject stability into the new system to prevent players breaking contracts at whim. Monti accepts the argument that totally free movement would make a mockery of players' contracts and undermine clubs' attempts to cultivate their squads and ensure fan loyalty.

To address this problem, plans have been approved for twice-yearly 'transfer windows'. In cases where both club and player are happy with the move, the new system could allow for severance fees to be agreed with the buying club. But there's still a heated debate over what to do with players who unilaterally break their contracts to join another team.

Under the old regime, a club could price a player out of the market if it did not want to sell - leaving him to sit out his contract, often in the reserves. But the Commission wants an arbitration system to set compensation levels according to clear criteria, such as length of contract served, wages and international experience.

In the interests of stability, Monti accepts that players should see out at least the first year of their contracts. After that, they could hand in their notice, wait for the next transfer window and sign for a new club. The level of compensation would be determined by the arbitration panel.

UEFA argues that granting players the right to leave after a year would strike a hammer blow to long-term contracts. "If a player signs a three-year contract, that should be respected," says UEFA spokesman Mike Lee. He insisits that players breaking contracts in the first three years should be banned from the game for six months to a year as a legitimate "sporting sanction".

That view is echoed by FIFA spokesman Andreas Herren, who says: "We can't have a situation where players can leave if they don't like the colour of their tracksuit."

But the Commission fears that restricting player mobility beyond the first year of a contract could be challenged in the European courts, despite a ministerial declaration on the special role of sport at last December's Nice summit.

"That would leave three or four years of legal limbo," said a spokesman for Reding, adding that the imposition of strict punishments on players could also be legally dubious in many member states.

Gordon Taylor, president of European soccer players' lobby FIFPRO, says he would accept restrictions on movement ranging from one to three years, depending on a player's age. UEFA this week suggested it would cut its contract-stability demand from three years to two for players aged 28 and over in a bid to break the deadlock.

But the key issue is the way the arbitration systems would work. Both UEFA and FIFPRO admit that a well-functioning system will drive down player values. "If compensation levels are too low that will have an adverse effect on the market, there is no doubt about that," says Andy Williamson, of England's Football League.

Taylor says the new system will only work smoothly if arbitration is evenly balanced between both clubs and players.

But he claims it is the leagues and sports' governing bodies which should be responsible for giving more money to clubs hit by the loss of transfer income.

"It is not always fair to put the onus on the transfer system. Money could be better distributed from the centre. FIFA and UEFA can play their part," says the FIFPRO chief, adding "that is a pattern we and the Commission would like to see".

Commission sources say they would favour a basic system approved by FIFA and UEFA, but tailored to the vagaries of local employment law and collective bargaining by national players' associations. Such a step would erode the power that football chiefs enjoy over the game.

But if the sides fail to strike a deal in time, the European Court's judges could impose a system (see above).

And as the football pundits often are fond of saying, that would be like a penalty shoot-out - a rather unsatisfactory way to get a result.

Major feature. Football clubs across Europe are waiting anxiously as the game's power brokers work out a deal with will revolutionise the business of player transfers.