As an American, I have little knowledge of how football teams in Europe operate, financially speaking. I am aware that teams acquire players from other teams via the transfer system, which I believe involves a straight purchase, with the player receiving some fixed percentage of the transfer amount. However, I have some more in depth questions:
-How is a player’s salary determined?
-Does a player have any control whatsoever (aside from, say, pouting and refusing to play) over his destination and/or team?
-If players have no control over their destination, why do lower-level teams agree to transfer players to bigger clubs? Is a large transfer fee really worth more, long-term, to the team’s prospects? Wouldn’t it be better to just keep the player, who would (presumably) help lead them up the ranks?
Salary is determined by contract negotiations between the player and the club.
A player has a contract for a fixed period; in that period he plays for that club and gets paid, after the contract expires he is free ot go where he wants.
PLayers have more than enough control as said above, smaller clubs sell their players to get money and buy new players. Some teams (or entire leagues even) really only work as a place for education for up and comming players. The dutch league is good example. A lot of young players come here to play a few yeard, get some European experience and then move on to bigger clubs (Ronaldo, Romario, Larson, Ibrahimovic and probably soon: Suarez).
For a LONG time a player was not free to go wherever he wants due to a contract expiring. A player took this to the EU Authorities and the so-called Bosman ruling (named after the player) was born, leaving us where we are today. As a result of this if a player has a year left on his contract and shows interest in moving on instead of signing a new contract he is usually sold, as delaying it could mean the club could end up making no money on him at all.
You can read more on that here:
It is quite common in the lower leagues for players to have clauses in their contracts regarding what happens if certain situations arise, for example if a Premier League team shows interest in them or an offer is made for his services over a certain amount of money. Hence, due to the contracts, clubs in lower leagues may not be able to hold on to these players. Of course one can ask why they offer these contracts, with the obvious answer being if they didn’t they would not get the services of these players in the first place.
Contact negotiations between the player and the club, usually with the help of the player’s agent. For instance, Wayne Rooney’s contract is up for renewal at Manchester United and he delayed negotiations over his salary til after the World Cup, presumably because he hoped to shine and drive his salary up. More fool him.
Yes, he does, he’s not sold like a slave. Of course, he doesn’t always get the option of staying where he wants - Manchester United sold Beckham against his will, but he at least had a say in where he went (Real Madrid).
Hard financial reality, unfortunately. A star player’s transfer fee can mean a lot, monetarily, and his price can fund the purchase of a number of lower ranked players. They probably also couldn’t meet his salary demands.
In the short term, yes, but it’s always better to have a couple of good players than one great one- especially in the lower divisions, where depth is at a premium.
If I’m a lower-tier club, and I’ve got Wayne Rooney eating up half of my total salary allowance (note that there are no salary caps in European sport, so player pay is limited only by what the team can afford) I run the risk of losing him to injury and watching my whole season go down the toilet.
On the other hand, I can sign three good players with the money I’ll get for my one great one, and mitigate my risk. Besides that, player salaries rise exponentially, just as they do in American sports. True superstars (Cristiano Ronaldo, Peyton Manning) might make one hundred times the league average - but good and even very good players only make two, five or ten times that amount. Thus, signing five very good players could be half as expensive as one great one.
Other common contract clauses are signing bonuses, performance bonuses - goal and assist bonuses for outfield players, clean sheet bonuses for goalkeepers - and “minimum transfer” options.
The latter are contingency clauses. For example, a team in danger of relegation, needing to sign a player reluctant to join them (and potentially end up stuck in a lower division the next season) could offer the player the right to be sold for a minimal fee (or to buy out his own contract for a minimal fee) in the event that the team gets relegated.
When a player is transferred to a bigger club with, say, one year remaining on his contract, does the transfer usually incorporate negotiation of a new long-term contract? That is, why would a club pay for a player if he’s going to walk free in a year?
The transfer always involves negotiation of a new contract. Contracts are invariably between the original team and player, and are voided in the event of a transfer.
There are two reasons to buy a player whose contract is expiring: you get him sooner, and you don’t have to worry about a contract bidding war. Players leaving clubs under the Bosman ruling will get dozens of contract offers if they’re any good, since the teams bidding don’t have to pay a transfer fee. Whatever money you’d save by waiting is usually eaten up by the bigger contract you have to offer.
Definite leg up. They can make new contract offers whenever they like, while other teams can’t make offers until the last 12 months of the player’s existing contract under UEFA rules (not sure about the other governing bodies).