http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34281054 FiFPro to challenge the current transfer system in court, and move which could turn the current system "on its head". as far as I can make out, Fifpro wants to make 4 changes The players' union wants four key changes made to the rules: Any player not paid by their club for more than 30 days can terminate their contract providing they have given the club at least 10 days' written notice If a contract is terminated by the club without just cause or by the player for non-payment, the player should be compensated by having the contract paid out by the club Any player without a contract after the process above should be able to find work immediately, without having to wait for a transfer window to open These reforms should apply domestically and internationally So I am not sure how that would end the current system completly, but seems ti have some people worried.
I think you're right, Dan. The only clubs I can see being affected are those heading for administration. If they can't pay the players' wages, then they'll still be responsible for paying off their contracts, and the players are free to seek paid employment elsewhere. A free agent isn't subject to transfer windows now, because no transfer takes place.
how would this affect the rules on a player transferring more than once in a window/twice in a season? It's against workers rights to restrict their options on finding employment so something needs to change. I like the fact players can terminate their contracts if they've not been paid. would they then become free agents and able to move to any club at any time thereafter?
I don't like these proposals. If a club is struggling financially it's got no support or anything now. Allowing players to leave is a way of clubs sinking faster. Clubs heading towards administration should be supported for the good of the game, if nothing else
Agreed. It's just one more way of players looking after themselves and sod the clubs. Having said that, I wouldn't like to work for a month without wages either. There's two sides to it, I guess.
Yeah, I thought of that also mate. Me and I'm assuming yourself have never been on 20 grand a week though, I'm imagining not being paid one month isn't going to send professional footballers into bankruptcy. I think 90 days would be more appropriate. 30 days is way to quick.
I dont think it is right to force players to play for a club without pay. ok, so in the premier league the players are paid so much that a going a while without pay isnt so much of a problem, but how about the lower leagues ? You cant expect a player on £750 a week (http://soccerlens.com/finance-in-english-football-wage-disparities-between-the-divisions/92692/ - ok so still a decent wage) to go more than a month without pay. they will have houses, families etc to pay for. At the end of the day the football clubs are businesses, and should be treated as such. Will be interesting if transfer windows get scrapped. some ways it would be good, but they would have to be very careful with unfair practices. What is stop clubs for tapping up a player just before a game just to destabilise them ?
i've been working in a new job for the last 6 months. got paid for the month i started then went 6 weeks without pay. if it wasn't a startup company working for a friend who saved me from a dead-end skill-less job i would have walked but that would have been at the risk of not getting paid so i kept coming to work (benefits of saving a little each month). another colleague couldn't 'cos he had bills to pay and couldn't afford to run his motor so he quit. (he eventually got paid but didn't have a job) perhaps, but if you've cut your cloth accordingly then even footballers on their astronomical wages could be in trouble. shall we compromise on 60 days? having experienced late wages it's not something i want to go through again.
