This is a massive change. Players will just be able to leave and the "old" club will not be able to withhold the transfer of registration rights. Old club left just suing player for breach. Loss will be small and normal employment law rights make restraints unenforceable. This is very, very significant.
Not accurate. If a player unilaterally terminates the contract - per your explanation - the ‘ex-club’ can still demand a transfer fee from the prospective new employer club. This new court rule applies in situations where the ‘ex-club’ terminated the contract AND still sought to enforce financial compensation from the player. The court said that situation is unfair and it makes sense. Generally when the contract is terminated mutually, the player leaves on a free transfer. In Diarra’s case, he did not want to take a pay cut, was banished from the squad AND his club terminated his contract AND prevented him from working elsewhere. That is a unique situation where a club weaponized the player registration certificate rule to essentially end Diarra’s career. The irony and question is what compensation does Diarra get from Locomotive Moscow?
@@gorbachevojiwa2896 Exactly. But that’s the current situation. If a club sacks a player who has a contract, the club still has to pay the player the remaining amount due under the contract. In this situation, Locomotive sacked the player AND still wanted to effectively collect a transfer fee from an out of contract player 😂 .. a clear violation of the Bosman rule which prevents clubs from demanding transfer fees for out of contract players
If that were the case, then all these high transfer fees for players into the tens of millions would have to drop down to hundreds of thousands instead. No club is going to pay £100m for a player, if they can just leave for another club any time, without the club controlling the transfer fee.
I can see most clubs adopting something similar to what we have in Spain with the 'release clauses', which is a buyout fee the players need to pay to terminate their contracts before its expiring date - usually, to move to another club. The player and the club agree to a fixed fee that becomes a part of the contract, just like any other clause, and it prevents all these situations where a court has to rule what's the fair compensation for the club if the player wants to terminate their contract early. Sure, there have been some litigations still, basically when the fee is deemed excessive considering the player's salary (as in he wouldn't be able to buy his contract out just by using his wages), but the system has been working reasonably well for decades. If a player under contract receives an offer from another club he wants to join, this potential new club is usually paying this fee for him as in any other transfer. This also solves some eternal transfer sagas as it sets a fixed price: just show the pre-agreed buyout money and the player will be yours no matter what his current club wishes, says, or does. In Lass' case, by having a buyout clause everyone would have known in advance the only fee he needed to pay to get himself out of his contract (i.e. the club wouldn't have been able to terminate his contract and then ask for a random 20M compensation fee that, later, a Russian court reduced to 10M), so he could have just paid it or looked for a club actually willing to pay it, and that would have been all. Under his actual situation, Charleroi simply said they weren't behind the fallout between Lass and Lokomotiv because it was an internal conflict that took place before their interest in the player, so they shouldn't be held responsible to pay the compensation now that he's supposedly free - which is kind of logical too in this precise case and that's why the EU Court overturns that rule in FIFA's transfer code. So, as I said, I can see clubs wanting to protect themselves by including a buyout clause in all of their contracts, to make sure every player wanting to leave early knows in advance the legal conditions of this contract termination. This guarantees the club will receive that compensation either way -directly from the player or from his potential new club. Then it's the players' turn to negotiate rational buyout fees that would be affordable to pay in case things go really south with their clubs.
What I find curious is the USA - the free market Mecca of the world - has the most socialistic rules that govern their sporting codes. The EU - home to some of the most successful socialist democracies - has the most free market, biggest money wins rules around its sporting codes.
When you buy a player you have to accept the risk that there is every likelihood they may or may not work out for you on the pitch that is the clubs risk not the player and if they fire them they should still have to pay the player the value of their contract
he is a EU citizen wanting to work for a EU employer and FIFA threatening the employer not to hire him. FIFA has no jurisdiction if this violates basic rights of EU citizens. It’s not about the compensation sought by the Russian club from the player.
FIFA and EU are different organizations, FIFA focus about football and dont really touch about political and geographic aspect so they allow to give some countries like Turjey, Russia to be part of EUFA even though theyre not part of EU. @Abdi-libaax
Players are not normal employees, pretending like they are is going to damage the sport of football. Clubs need to have security in knowing what players they will have available to them for the season, what takes 5 years to build can be destroyed overnight if you allow players to leave whenever they want, what's the point as a fan to even invest in your club when everything is so volatile? What's to stop Real Madrid tapping up whatever player they want regardless of the length of their contract? If all they have to do is pay the players fine then why wouldn't they just do that?
They canceled his contract and asked him to pay them €10million on what basis? Football contracts are guaranteed. You can’t just terminate the contract without compensating the player (Diarra). They should’ve paid him to leave and not the other way around. The court got it right. Employees or players aren’t slaves.
And you think that the owners of US sports aren't mafias too? You need to grow up. There won't be a 'democratic regulatory body' if the US takes over. They will set the rules with the US owners and that will be it. They will be just as corrupt, just as closed shop and just as on the take.
@@johnmccadden9963 it has not gone before a judge has it? This is an inquiry not a trial/court case. INQUIRY FRAMWS THE CHARGES AS CORRECT OR WRONG. In panel of arbitrators trusted individuals who are accepted by both parties with in the EPL organisation.
Except you can't with the premier league, the whole point is you keep it all in house. There's no method of appeal which goes outside the PL. No club would would basically try sue themselves as they all hold a stake in the PL if they went outside
@@d.b.cooper1players could go outside though. But then, they wouldn’t be protected by EU worker’s rights and English courts probably wouldn’t bother to accept the case.
This is a massive change. Players will just be able to leave and the "old" club will not be able to withhold the transfer of registration rights. Old club left just suing player for breach. Loss will be small and normal employment law rights make restraints unenforceable.
This is very, very significant.
As well, clubs can also sack players in this regard and platers would only sue for breach and no more. What's good for the goose
The ECJ ruling makes no difference to situation where a club sacks a player. @@gorbachevojiwa2896
Not accurate. If a player unilaterally terminates the contract - per your explanation - the ‘ex-club’ can still demand a transfer fee from the prospective new employer club. This new court rule applies in situations where the ‘ex-club’ terminated the contract AND still sought to enforce financial compensation from the player. The court said that situation is unfair and it makes sense. Generally when the contract is terminated mutually, the player leaves on a free transfer. In Diarra’s case, he did not want to take a pay cut, was banished from the squad AND his club terminated his contract AND prevented him from working elsewhere. That is a unique situation where a club weaponized the player registration certificate rule to essentially end Diarra’s career. The irony and question is what compensation does Diarra get from Locomotive Moscow?
@@gorbachevojiwa2896 Exactly. But that’s the current situation. If a club sacks a player who has a contract, the club still has to pay the player the remaining amount due under the contract. In this situation, Locomotive sacked the player AND still wanted to effectively collect a transfer fee from an out of contract player 😂 .. a clear violation of the Bosman rule which prevents clubs from demanding transfer fees for out of contract players
If that were the case, then all these high transfer fees for players into the tens of millions would have to drop down to hundreds of thousands instead. No club is going to pay £100m for a player, if they can just leave for another club any time, without the club controlling the transfer fee.
Could get into Football history as the "Diarra Verdict" "Diarra Decision"
I can see most clubs adopting something similar to what we have in Spain with the 'release clauses', which is a buyout fee the players need to pay to terminate their contracts before its expiring date - usually, to move to another club. The player and the club agree to a fixed fee that becomes a part of the contract, just like any other clause, and it prevents all these situations where a court has to rule what's the fair compensation for the club if the player wants to terminate their contract early. Sure, there have been some litigations still, basically when the fee is deemed excessive considering the player's salary (as in he wouldn't be able to buy his contract out just by using his wages), but the system has been working reasonably well for decades. If a player under contract receives an offer from another club he wants to join, this potential new club is usually paying this fee for him as in any other transfer. This also solves some eternal transfer sagas as it sets a fixed price: just show the pre-agreed buyout money and the player will be yours no matter what his current club wishes, says, or does.
In Lass' case, by having a buyout clause everyone would have known in advance the only fee he needed to pay to get himself out of his contract (i.e. the club wouldn't have been able to terminate his contract and then ask for a random 20M compensation fee that, later, a Russian court reduced to 10M), so he could have just paid it or looked for a club actually willing to pay it, and that would have been all. Under his actual situation, Charleroi simply said they weren't behind the fallout between Lass and Lokomotiv because it was an internal conflict that took place before their interest in the player, so they shouldn't be held responsible to pay the compensation now that he's supposedly free - which is kind of logical too in this precise case and that's why the EU Court overturns that rule in FIFA's transfer code.
So, as I said, I can see clubs wanting to protect themselves by including a buyout clause in all of their contracts, to make sure every player wanting to leave early knows in advance the legal conditions of this contract termination. This guarantees the club will receive that compensation either way -directly from the player or from his potential new club. Then it's the players' turn to negotiate rational buyout fees that would be affordable to pay in case things go really south with their clubs.
@@snedecor84 such a buyout clause would not be enforceable under English law
@@Jose-3nn So change english law to make it enforceable.
That's one GOATED Lawyer!!
How can they sue him after they terminated his contract?
How did Diarra owe compensation when he wasn't allowed to train?
Because the club accused him not wanting to train. That may not be true but that's what the club has accused him of. Hence compensation.
players need to decide. want security with contracts or not.
Forcing a player to pay 10m is ridiculous
Why ?. He refused to train and do his job
As a Chelsea fan this is terrifying haha
as a fellow chelsea fan I agree hahaha
I instantly thought of Chelsea when I heard the news. Potentially all these long contracts could mean nothing if players want to get regular football.
@@p1mmyt0w3llChelsea should just establish their own league with a round robin between Chelsea 1 to Chelsea 4.
Exactly. Why shouldnt a player be allowed to leave by just paying off the contract.
Next..... FFP gets exposed.
Only shitty have issues with ffp
Plastic launderin club
What I find curious is the USA - the free market Mecca of the world - has the most socialistic rules that govern their sporting codes. The EU - home to some of the most successful socialist democracies - has the most free market, biggest money wins rules around its sporting codes.
Number of socialist democracies in Europe = 0.
If you think the USA has free markets, you need to grow up. They talk about free markets, but they rig them right, left and centre.
The EU is a communist bloc.
When you buy a player you have to accept the risk that there is every likelihood they may or may not work out for you on the pitch that is the clubs risk not the player and if they fire them they should still have to pay the player the value of their contract
Only certain clubs get away with stuff like this
Like players and agents haven't already got enough power.
You could here his disgust about players getting more power after this guy had his career ruined with those rulings
That just means you offer lower contracts since there is a risk of termination without compensation. Might have shot themselves in the fot here
"Breaking the EU rules?" ... But Russia is not part of the EU. 😆
he is a EU citizen wanting to work for a EU employer and FIFA threatening the employer not to hire him. FIFA has no jurisdiction if this violates basic rights of EU citizens. It’s not about the compensation sought by the Russian club from the player.
Why are Russian teams allowed to play in the European competitions? Or the national team play in the European championship?
FIFA and EU are different organizations, FIFA focus about football and dont really touch about political and geographic aspect so they allow to give some countries like Turjey, Russia to be part of EUFA even though theyre not part of EU. @Abdi-libaax
@@Abdi-libaax Man because they European
ohh ffs just let players go to what clubs they want if the money is avaliable!!!
This is a rare EU dub
Players are not normal employees, pretending like they are is going to damage the sport of football. Clubs need to have security in knowing what players they will have available to them for the season, what takes 5 years to build can be destroyed overnight if you allow players to leave whenever they want, what's the point as a fan to even invest in your club when everything is so volatile? What's to stop Real Madrid tapping up whatever player they want regardless of the length of their contract? If all they have to do is pay the players fine then why wouldn't they just do that?
Would be the death of the smaller leagues.
How is it exactly?
lol you're just talking out your backside
But fifa and uefa are not corrupt 😂😂😂😂
@@andrewwright4195 lay off the drugs plastic Liverpool fan.
Players must learn to respect their contract
This video has nothing to do with players not doing their part of the contract
They released him. If anything they are owned HIM money.
@@NostalgiNordenexactly 😂😂
They canceled his contract and asked him to pay them €10million on what basis? Football contracts are guaranteed. You can’t just terminate the contract without compensating the player (Diarra). They should’ve paid him to leave and not the other way around. The court got it right. Employees or players aren’t slaves.
Open your window and.................. Pavement time
FIFA is a MAFIA!!!!! LONG TIME, AND STILL REMAINS.
When did Russia become part of Europe! This makes no sense.
French player moving to Belgium and FIFA block it with this charge that is not a EU regulation
@@artukai3831 But moving from a Russian club to a Belgian club. The ,cited 'EU rule of Freedom of movement, only applies to EU countries. Not Russia.
When was Israel part of Europe. They compete in Eurovision and the Euros. At least part of Russia's geography is part of Europe.
@@grantdixon230he is a EU citizen wanting to work for a EU employer and FIFA threatening the employer.
Why are Russian teams allowed to play in European competitions?
The EU has rulings for free movement.
Since when was Russia in the EU ?????
Your delusional
rafeal leao
Oh look at that - benefits of EU membership.
Who would've thought. 🙄
But we ain’t in the eu anymore so how does that matter?
Why do teams pay transfer fees, just scrap your contract and sign for someone else
You’re mad stupid. Stay in school
You’ll still be liable for damage.
Because you can't create a worthwhile competitive league if most clubs simply can't make any plans because players up sticks at the first opportunity.
Good FIFA is a Mafia
And you think that the owners of US sports aren't mafias too? You need to grow up. There won't be a 'democratic regulatory body' if the US takes over. They will set the rules with the US owners and that will be it. They will be just as corrupt, just as closed shop and just as on the take.
This only means fans will have to pay much more to watch their team😡😡😡
City kicking up dirt so they don’t look so bad with that 115 charges
Charges where EPL has not provided evidence.
@@ifl1476Why has it gone before a judge without evidence?
@@johnmccadden9963 it has not gone before a judge has it? This is an inquiry not a trial/court case. INQUIRY FRAMWS THE CHARGES AS CORRECT OR WRONG.
In panel of arbitrators trusted individuals who are accepted by both parties with in the EPL organisation.
@@ifl1476 so you’re saying Trump is innocent?
@@Happytimes710TSU that civil lawsuit , this an inquiry not a court case.
This is ManCity's ultimate escape, involving Civil Courts in football matters.
Except you can't with the premier league, the whole point is you keep it all in house. There's no method of appeal which goes outside the PL. No club would would basically try sue themselves as they all hold a stake in the PL if they went outside
@@d.b.cooper1players could go outside though. But then, they wouldn’t be protected by EU worker’s rights and English courts probably wouldn’t bother to accept the case.
woow