Seems like they just “buy” players from other clubs with “transfer fees”.
In the US all four leagues typically trade players where teams take over the existing contracts . Unless your contract expires making you a free agent and you can sign with whoever they want. Sometimes teams “sell” players to other teams but this is rare. Draft picks are often involved.
Why not in Europe? Is it because there is no salary cap? Is it because of the Darwinian nature of relegation/promotion? No draft picks?
Does the player get any of the transfer fee? Are there ever free agents? How long is a soccer contract? Does the acquiring team not only pay the other team for the player but also assume his contract? Does the player have any power to determine who he will be transferred to, including renogiating his contract with the buyer?
And what role do agents play? There was a recent scandal with Big Sam regarding a “bung” payment. How does that work?
Finally what incentive is there to “loan” a player to another club and what do they get from the other team?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m not sure if it’s the main factor, but probably a contributing one is that there is less parity in soccer than in all American sports. Barcelona purchased Frenkie de Jong from Ajax. Barca makes probably 10x or more the revenue that Ajax does. There aren’t a ton of players on Bercelona that Ajax could afford.
Once a team accepts a transfer fee for a player, which does not go to the player it goes to team, the player must agree to a new contract with the new team, or the transfer does not go through. Loaning gets a player regular playing time that he is unable to get with his team, usually because he is not yet good enough- soccer training only gets you so far, you really need real game play to improve. Usually players are loaned to a different country or different level team. When loaned to a team in same league, usually they have a clause they cannot play against the club who is loaning them, but oddly, they can play in games which dont involve parent club, but could have a negative impact on the parent clubs standing. .
This means that there must be lots of “behind the scenes” negotiating between a player’s agent and the new team in advance of a transfer. The latest big transfer in Europe was Atletico Madrid acquiring Joao Felix from Benicia for 126 million Euro. Felix’s “release clause” was 120 million Euro, which means that Benicia would not lose him unless another team paid them at least that amount. Atletico and Felix would have had to agree to their own terms; e.g., salary, bonuses, etc. before Atletico approached Benfica with a wheelbarrow of cash.
Yes and no. Since you don’t have the freedom to negotiate with anyone else, your only option if you don’t agree to terms with the new team is to sit out and not play. That’s pretty rare.
It’s kinda like America before Curt Flood. At least Europe has partial free-agency: if your contract expires at a club, they no longer have any “rights” to you to sell.
So is it then okay for Athletico to approach Felix and his agent and negotiate a contract even if he is still under Benficas control? Is this what is referred to as “tapping up”?
In the US this is a big no no and considered tampering, which can cost a team lots of fines and draft picks. Even a coach praising another teams player that is near free agency can get you in trouble.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I thought they did if the player tried to transfer to a club in a league outside of the EU. (The only reason players can transfer within the EU when their contract runs out is the Bosman ruling by the European Court of Justice in 1995.)
Yes and no. Remember, if the player goes to another country, then there are only two avenues of recourse: the legal system of the other country, or FIFA. I doubt China’s courts, for example, would preclude a Chinese club from employing a player who’s “rights” were nominally held by a European club. I’m not sure exactly where FIFA stands on this at the moment. It seems to me that I’ve seen players head to China on free transfers before, but I could be wrong.
As I understand it, the contract is just another employment contract. You are free to decide if you want to get out of it and if you and the new club are willing to go through the civil legalities needed and stump up the cash to “buy out” the contract.
When I was a free contractor there was nothing stopping me speaking to other potential employees nor them to me, of course it is also possible to write such a restrictive clause into any contract but whether it would hold legal water is another thing.
It can be an employment contract or a commercial contract (purchase of services); usually it’s an employment contract but theoretically the player could be set up as self-employed or as a corporation (which options are allowed will vary by location). Cancellation clauses are there as a disincentive for hopping, but then, so is the clause in my own contract stating that I have to pay my client if I don’t provide proper notice: I don’t just not get paid, I’ve got a penalty for harm assumed.
The Bosman ruling affects counting as “extranational”, players can transfer within the EU at any time.
US major league sports also allow trading of draft picks except for baseball . An example would be a top player could be traded for a 1st round pick or a 1st round pick plus a young player. Also draft picks can be traded for other picks with no players in the trade.
If a player’s contract is ending and he’s a top player on a bad team they are often traded to a good team for the remainder of the season. That is often called “a rental” since the player might only be there for part of 1 season.
Do you go to the supermarket and try to barter your wristwatch for food? No. You use money to exchange for gods and services. That’s how it is.
Contracts can be of any length, but normally several years. If the contract comes within two years of ending a new contract or a sale will normally be arranged, to avoid the player being able to leave on a Bosman.
Players don’t normally get any part of the transfer fee, but I’m sure I’ve heard of it happening a couple of times. Sometimes they get a signing on bonus. Sometimes the agent gets a share. When Leeds sold Kewell his agent took most of the fee.
A bung is normally a bribe to a manager to buy a specific player, often an agent paying out of his commission, which he wouldn’t get without the sale.
Loans are normally young players getting experience, but they can be older players recovering from injury, highly paid players who aren’t playing but who a team want to loan in exchange for part payment of the wages. Loans can also involve loan fees.
Transfer contracts also often involve clauses allowing big clubs to buy backs players they have sold, or small teams to get a share of the next transfer of a player they have sold.
the idea of a draft is to spread talent around. The worst teams get the highest picks in each round. That’s the same idea that led to salary caps or luxury taxes in US major pro sports , to spread talent.
When the Yankees won a lot of their world series titles there was no baseball draft so they had the ability to sign top talent from all over the US and they did just that.
I think the operative question is why. Is the trading of a contract explicitly prohibited by some entity? Does the multi-national nature of the sport play a role? When a player is purchased, are they also getting the player under the same terms (salary) as their previous agreement, or is the original agreement now null and void? Is the transfer fee basically the amount of money that the controlling team demands to cancel their existing contract? Why wouldn’t the rights to a player of similar talent be considered a fungible currency in these discussions?
Could your employer sell your contract to a different employer? Why not, is it prohibited by some entity? Or are you just in a field where a system of trading contracts hasn’t developed and where this hasn’t been written into every employee’s contract?
The notion of parity among teams is almost nonexistent in European sports, as far as I can tell. In the English Premier league (soccer) six teams (out of 20) dominate the league in terms of payroll and league success. When Leicester City, a non-big 6 team, won the championship in 2015-6, it was the sports story of the year.
Why would it be a mystery? Are you surprised by the ability of major IT companies to attract and retain the best talent? Are you surprised by their ability to continue to thrive?
The irony of American sports seems to be their inherently socialist nature.