PDA

View Full Version : How come employment law is different in football

gingertom
22-08-2006, 14:57
I was reading the following comment on the BBC site regarding Owen Haregreaves

"The German club's general manager Uli Hoeness said: "Hargreaves is well advised to keep quiet.

"Otherwise I will get very angry and that will not be good for him. I can't understand that after two discussions he is still forcing the issue."

It amazes me that football clubs can talk about employees this way.

I have no sympathy with players (they are at this level, extremly well paid and pampered). But how the hell do clubs get away with talking about employees in this manner, without being sued?
Dan
22-08-2006, 14:59
Imagine if players were allowed to go for interviews at other clubs and then sign contracts, would they have to give 4 weeks notice?
mattwakeman
22-08-2006, 15:03
Football has been made a special exception, I believe, to the European employment laws for the reasons that Dan has said. Although it is possible to look at contracts as being somehow akin to slavery (albeit one in which the top slaves are incredibly well paid) if players could just chop and change at will then there would be no game at all.

And at the end of the day don't Bayern have the right to be angry that a player who is under contract to them is all but demanding the right to go? If players don't want to be tied down to a contract why don't they sign monthly contracts then?
gingertom
22-08-2006, 15:04
Exactly my point. A contract is a contract, but why can a club sell a player it is contracted to. How can that be right? The whole thing is nuts. The Bosman ruling opened the door, but surely a player with enough clout will one day kick the door in, demand his right and expose the whole process for what it is.
gingertom
22-08-2006, 15:07
And at the end of the day don't Bayern have the right to be angry that a player who is under contract to them is all but demanding the right to go? If players don't want to be tied down to a contract why don't they sign monthly contracts then?

They have the right to be annoyed, but the tone reported is threatening. Which cant be right whatever the reason.
Dan
22-08-2006, 15:10
If a player really wants to go then I think he should be allowed to go, who wants someone in their team who wants to play for someone else?
mattwakeman
22-08-2006, 15:27
They have the right to be annoyed, but the tone reported is threatening. Which cant be right whatever the reason.

I can see what you are saying and I think as much of the anger in what they have said to Hargreaves is aimed at Man U as much as the player. Quite frankly I think that it would be hilarious if footy players had as much freedom as the rest of us as organised leagues would collapse quite quickly. Let's be honest about this though, now a days if a player (a good player) wants to go then he will get his way no doubt about it. But I agree that one day somebody will break the rules down in a way that makes the Bosman ruling look cautious.

Even as we speak there is a Hearts player who is trying to move without serving out the terms of his contract by giving notice. Not really that sure of the details but more info here:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart_of_midlothian/5233096.stm

If this guy is successful then it could be very interesting indeed...well, as long as you don't mind having about 12 clubs that have all of the best players and win everything all of the time....ooh, wait a sec...
gingertom
22-08-2006, 15:31
If this guy is successful then it could be very interesting indeed...well, as long as you don't mind having about 12 clubs that have all of the best players and win everything all of the time....ooh, wait a sec...

:thumbs: nice one :)
mattwakeman
22-08-2006, 15:31
Exactly my point. A contract is a contract, but why can a club sell a player it is contracted to. How can that be right? The whole thing is nuts. The Bosman ruling opened the door, but surely a player with enough clout will one day kick the door in, demand his right and expose the whole process for what it is.

A player can always refuse to go. But most players would tend to think that if the club they are at wants to sell them then they are not wanted. Plus they can negotiate a lovely new signing bonus. Contracts are worth very little from both sides of the fence in football it will seem. Clubs are quick to let players go as soon as they want and players will quickly forget they have signed a contract if it suits them.

No longer a sport but a very corrupt and quite twisted business.
Mandrill
22-08-2006, 15:49
Another thing as far as I know is that if a player doesnt ask for a transfer then if the club sell him they have to pay up the rest of his contract.
NetDevil
22-08-2006, 17:38
Another thing as far as I know is that if a player doesnt ask for a transfer then if the club sell him they have to pay up the rest of his contract.

I think that's usually just a clause that some players have had inserted into their contracts, sort of a loyalty bonus. I'd be surprised if this was the case across the board.
Bapapapa
22-08-2006, 17:46
A player can always refuse to go. a la Winston Bogarde.. :lol:
mattwakeman
22-08-2006, 18:21
a la Winston Bogarde.. :lol:

Otherwise known as my fave footy player evar...

£20,000 a week for four years for...eight appearances :notworthy

And you know what he said when his contract expired and *gasp* Chelsea did not renew it? He said that he was going to retire unless he could find another club that was prepared to give him another contract :eek:

The gall of the man, it's just...beautiful... :nuts:
HBK757
22-08-2006, 19:36
You can threaten me all day long for £30k a week, hell, £5k a week if you want. No sympathy whatsoever.
Pisces Iscariot
22-08-2006, 19:57
£20,000 a week for four years for...eight appearances :notworthy
No, he was on £40k a week. :lol:
mattwakeman
22-08-2006, 20:04
No, he was on £40k a week. :lol:

:eek:

He's now my fave footy player twice as much as he was before!!!
john316
22-08-2006, 20:44
I think that's usually just a clause that some players have had inserted into their contracts, sort of a loyalty bonus. I'd be surprised if this was the case across the board.

Its an across the board contract perk far as I know
Mandrill
22-08-2006, 22:08
Its an across the board contract perk far as I know

Thats what I throught thus why a player asking for a transfer is a big thing because by doing that they give up the rights to have the rest of the contract paid up.