The latest move by the football unions' umbrella body looks as if it's aimed at limiting the influence of agents and dealing with the problem of third-party ownership – and may thus be a good thing
The creation of the Premier League is commonly held to be modern football's Big Bang moment, providing the catalyst for the explosion of money, greed, entertainment and exponential growth that followed.
But a ruling in December 1995 in the European court of justice that allowed an obscure Belgian player, Jean-Marc Bosman, to force through a move to French second division side Dunkerque was arguably just as pivotal.
Not only did Bosman's case, which went all the way to Europe's highest appeal court, pave the way for freedom of movement for players within the continent at the end of their contracts in accordance with EU law but it swept away Uefa's "three plus two" rule that had acted as a check on the number of overseas players in each side. From there, it was a short hop to Chelsea becoming the first Premier League side to field a non-UK starting XI at Southampton four years later and a huge increase in the wealth of players and agents.
Not that any of it did Bosman himself many favours, doomed as he was to remain better known for his exploits in the courtroom than on the pitch. By the time he emerged from his five-year legal battle, he was divorced and dealing with depression, living in his parents' garage in Liège. Having effectively become a pariah in a European football and, facing huge legal and tax liabilities, he was forced to get by on benefits.
Bosman was backed in his case by Fifpro, the little known but influential umbrella body for players' unions throughout the world. Whether the consequences of its latest legal intervention are as far-reaching remains to be seen.
Its full frontal assault on the assumptions that underpin the transfer market could, if successful, fundamentally change the fabric of the game.
Fifpro is in bullish mood, having recently made pivotal contributions to the debate around workers' rights on Qatar, the controversy over concussion and the heat players will face at this summer's World Cup: it is confident that its intervention will have a major effect on the way football is run.
"Fifpro will not stand by and watch from the sidelines as football players' rights around the world are systemically disrespected and the football industry dismantles itself," said Fifpro's president, Phillipe Piat, announcing the move.
Many clubs would argue that, under the informal agreement reached in 2001 between Uefa, Fifa and the EU on the principles of the transfer system and the Bosman ruling that followed, the balance of power has tipped decisively in favour of the players and their agents.
Able either to sit out their contract and realise the financial benefits of a free transfer or renew on favourable terms, the biggest players are in the box seat.
But Fifpro would argue that this holds true for only a tiny minority of players at the top of football's pyramid and that the vast majority of players remain "shackled" to their club on unfair terms.
"Football players are workers and only when they are able to enjoy the rights enshrined in law and enjoyed by all other workers, will Fifpro be satisfied", added Piat who announced the transfer system as his "top priority" when elected Fifpro president in October.
There are two competing legal principles at work, forming a tension at the heart of EU policy. On the one hand, sport's "specificity" is recognised, making it a special case in comparison to other industries. On the other, there are the overarching principles that govern EU labour law and freedom of movement.
Fifpro's real concern lies with the flaws in a global system that has been warped out of recognition by third party ownership, in which several individuals or companies can own the economic rights to a player imported from, say, South America or Africa at a young age, and agents who earn more than $750m from the game annually.
Third party ownership is outlawed in English football but, while both Uefa and Fifa have said they are committed to banning the practice, it remains commonplace across Europe.
In timely fashion, Fifpro has also linked its campaign to growing alarm at the scale of match fixing across the world, often in leagues where players are poorly paid and therefore open to grooming by crime syndicates.
"Thousands of players worldwide are not paid on time, or not at all, while 28% of the global transfer market is paid to agents and lost to the game. Something is not right with this picture," said the Fifpro European president and PFA deputy chief executive Bobby Barnes.
"Unpaid players are vulnerable targets [for] crime syndicates, who instigate match-fixing and threaten the very existence of credible football competitions. The current industrial model of football fails to ensure a professional management and compliance culture that is capable of safeguarding our game against internal and external abuse," he said.
"It [also] encourages speculative, unsustainable, immoral and illegal investment models like third party ownership of players."
Insiders at Europe's biggest leagues are confident that Fifpro's target is not the trade of players between their clubs but rather the picture lower down the pyramid. So while Jim White can perhaps rest easy in his bed, any move by Fifpro to make progress on issues such as third party ownership and to limit the influence of agents should be welcomed. Reported by guardian.co.uk 5 hours ago.
The creation of the Premier League is commonly held to be modern football's Big Bang moment, providing the catalyst for the explosion of money, greed, entertainment and exponential growth that followed.
But a ruling in December 1995 in the European court of justice that allowed an obscure Belgian player, Jean-Marc Bosman, to force through a move to French second division side Dunkerque was arguably just as pivotal.
Not only did Bosman's case, which went all the way to Europe's highest appeal court, pave the way for freedom of movement for players within the continent at the end of their contracts in accordance with EU law but it swept away Uefa's "three plus two" rule that had acted as a check on the number of overseas players in each side. From there, it was a short hop to Chelsea becoming the first Premier League side to field a non-UK starting XI at Southampton four years later and a huge increase in the wealth of players and agents.
Not that any of it did Bosman himself many favours, doomed as he was to remain better known for his exploits in the courtroom than on the pitch. By the time he emerged from his five-year legal battle, he was divorced and dealing with depression, living in his parents' garage in Liège. Having effectively become a pariah in a European football and, facing huge legal and tax liabilities, he was forced to get by on benefits.
Bosman was backed in his case by Fifpro, the little known but influential umbrella body for players' unions throughout the world. Whether the consequences of its latest legal intervention are as far-reaching remains to be seen.
Its full frontal assault on the assumptions that underpin the transfer market could, if successful, fundamentally change the fabric of the game.
Fifpro is in bullish mood, having recently made pivotal contributions to the debate around workers' rights on Qatar, the controversy over concussion and the heat players will face at this summer's World Cup: it is confident that its intervention will have a major effect on the way football is run.
"Fifpro will not stand by and watch from the sidelines as football players' rights around the world are systemically disrespected and the football industry dismantles itself," said Fifpro's president, Phillipe Piat, announcing the move.
Many clubs would argue that, under the informal agreement reached in 2001 between Uefa, Fifa and the EU on the principles of the transfer system and the Bosman ruling that followed, the balance of power has tipped decisively in favour of the players and their agents.
Able either to sit out their contract and realise the financial benefits of a free transfer or renew on favourable terms, the biggest players are in the box seat.
But Fifpro would argue that this holds true for only a tiny minority of players at the top of football's pyramid and that the vast majority of players remain "shackled" to their club on unfair terms.
"Football players are workers and only when they are able to enjoy the rights enshrined in law and enjoyed by all other workers, will Fifpro be satisfied", added Piat who announced the transfer system as his "top priority" when elected Fifpro president in October.
There are two competing legal principles at work, forming a tension at the heart of EU policy. On the one hand, sport's "specificity" is recognised, making it a special case in comparison to other industries. On the other, there are the overarching principles that govern EU labour law and freedom of movement.
Fifpro's real concern lies with the flaws in a global system that has been warped out of recognition by third party ownership, in which several individuals or companies can own the economic rights to a player imported from, say, South America or Africa at a young age, and agents who earn more than $750m from the game annually.
Third party ownership is outlawed in English football but, while both Uefa and Fifa have said they are committed to banning the practice, it remains commonplace across Europe.
In timely fashion, Fifpro has also linked its campaign to growing alarm at the scale of match fixing across the world, often in leagues where players are poorly paid and therefore open to grooming by crime syndicates.
"Thousands of players worldwide are not paid on time, or not at all, while 28% of the global transfer market is paid to agents and lost to the game. Something is not right with this picture," said the Fifpro European president and PFA deputy chief executive Bobby Barnes.
"Unpaid players are vulnerable targets [for] crime syndicates, who instigate match-fixing and threaten the very existence of credible football competitions. The current industrial model of football fails to ensure a professional management and compliance culture that is capable of safeguarding our game against internal and external abuse," he said.
"It [also] encourages speculative, unsustainable, immoral and illegal investment models like third party ownership of players."
Insiders at Europe's biggest leagues are confident that Fifpro's target is not the trade of players between their clubs but rather the picture lower down the pyramid. So while Jim White can perhaps rest easy in his bed, any move by Fifpro to make progress on issues such as third party ownership and to limit the influence of agents should be welcomed. Reported by guardian.co.uk 5 hours ago.