How FIFPro legal action against FIFA could result in abolition of player transfer fees
The transfer season is, depending on your inclination towards these sorts of things, either one of the most exciting or the most frustrating parts of the football season. All clubs naturally look to strengthen their squads when they can, which in turn has given the football media a wide berth to speculate as to which specific players clubs may be looking to bring in.
The transfer system itself seems rather straightforward – the buying club pays the selling club a “transfer fee” that the seller deems appropriate, and the player is then transferred from the seller to the buyer. In the recent past, transfer fees have risen dramatically as more money is injected into the sport. This has also been aided by the fact that that the growth of TV deals across the European leagues allow for “smaller” clubs to pay transfer fees and wages that would have been unthinkable for them even five years ago.
The transfer system itself has undergone some major changes to bring it to the situation it is in currently. Most of these changes have come about as a result of legal challenges to the system by various players or organisations, as the transfer system since its inception has always been biased in favour of the clubs.
Players’ rights have often been marginalised, and it has only been due to legal challenges by aggrieved players that there has been a gradual widening of what players are entitled to. Many media outlets have referred to this as the rise of “player power”, but in reality, these developments are actually only steps towards creating a balance between clubs’ and players’ rights.
The International Federation of Professional Footballers (commonly referred to as FIFPro), is the world’s largest representative organisation of professional footballers. It is comprised of 58 national players’ associations, and aims to provide a platform to represent the interests of professional football players.
The apparent excesses of modern football are well-documented, with talented teenagers like Martin Ødegaard earning a reported £80,000 per week. However, this wage scale is only for players at the absolute top of the pyramid. The majority of professional footballers (particularly when accounting for those who ply their trade outside of Europe’s major footballing powers, or those at the lower levels of the football pyramid), are not millionaires, nor are they likely to ever be. Many players in smaller countries often suffer from a lack of regular payment of their contractually guaranteed wages, resulting in major economic hardship.
It is in light of this that FIFPro are filing a suit with the European Commission (EC) claiming that the current transfer system violates basic European competition law. FIFPro had been in talks for several years with FIFA, UEFA, and the top European leagues looking for ways to reform the transfer system in a manner that they felt would be more representative of players and more protective of their rights.
However, these talks broke down in January of this year, leading to the lawsuit being filed. Interestingly, the EC had warned FIFA and UEFA about the issues in the transfer system back in 1998, saying it was an obstruction to players’ freedom of movement. This warning led to changes in various regulations regarding contracts and compensation between players and clubs by September 2001. Before getting into an analysis of FIFPro’s exact demands, a look at the history of the transfer system would provide some much-needed context.
Evolution of the transfer system
In 1885, the Football Association allowed for professional players being paid by their clubs for representing them. Before this, most teams were comprised entirely of amateurs, and various rules had been established to restrict professionalism. It was only after 37 clubs threatened to break away from the FA that they finally agreed to professionals being paid by clubs. The vast majority of players had other employment and only supplemented their wages by playing football.
Another facet of the game at that time was the lack of exclusivity of players. Players could agree to play one or any more games for another club. To deal with this, the FA introduced the concept of player registrations. This meant that players had to register with a club at the beginning of every season, even if it was his club in the previous season. Players could join another club in the off-season, even if their club wished to retain them. However, it became apparent that the richer and better-off clubs could easily lure players from smaller clubs to play for them.
The 1893-94 season also saw the introduction of the “retain and transfer” system, which has in turn formed the basis for the transfer system that we know today. Under this system, once a player was registered with a Football League club, they could not be registered with another club even in later seasons, without the consent of their current club.
What made this system unfair (to the player at least) was the fact that these rules applied even when the contract expired, meaning that there was no obligation on the club to play or pay the player, and he could not play for any other Football League club without a valid registration. Naturally, this led to the rise of the transfer fee, as clubs realised that they could demand some “consideration” (which is a vital part of English contract law), for the release of a player’s registration.
It is claimed that the first-ever instance of a player being exchanged for money was the case of Willie Groves, who moved from West Bromwich Albion to Aston Villa for £100 in 1893. The enforcement of a wage cap (£4 a week!) in 1901 further entrenched this system.
The first legal challenge to this was brought by the Aston Villa player Herbert Kingaby in 1912, but an “erroneous strategy” by his lawyer led to the suit being dismissed. The system remained largely unchanged until 1962, when England international George Eastham successfully sued Newcastle United for the right of players to move (and earned a move to Arsenal as a result). The English High Court held that the existing system was an unfair restraint on trade. The “retain” aspect of the system was reduced, and a tribunal for resolution disputes was set up.