Don't forget that Parma (at the time a pretty damn good team) wanted to sign him as well. However, his ACL injury prior to the 1990 World Cup eliminated that possibility. My memory is hazy, but I seem to recall that he needed to play in the World Cup in order to get signed by Parma due to some work permit-like requirement. In Bruce's defense, I do think a bit of mythology has developed on these boards about the quality of Hugo. A poster above called him Maradona/Messi'esque..........which people like us who actually saw him play know is utter nonsense. He wasn't remotely in that category of player.
Nor am I claiming he was. But he was certainly far more skilled than any other US player of that era, able to play, technically, with many of the best teams in the world and far better than Bruce is giving him credit.
We need to remember that in those days it was even more difficult for an American to move to Europe than it is today due to foreign player limits/work permit restrictions, etc. Brad Friedel was denied a work permit 3 different times...........................yet Robbie Rogers and Robbie Findley got one. Different eras. Could Hugo have played for a much bigger club than FAS, Red Star, and Orgyte? Yes, but the timing was never right. Things are diffierent now, and there are lots of opportunities for youngsters like Joshua to A) get noticed by bigger Euro clubs and B) make the move. So we'll see what happens here. He's been linked to big clubs other than PSV. If my memory serves me correctly, he's also had interest from Fiorentina.
He's still under 18 y/o though. He'd need his family to move with him to Europe or he needs to be able to obtain an EU passport if he wants to make the move full time to Europe, FIFA rules.
OK, a bunch of people wanted to sign him but nobody did. And that is the gist of the legend of Hugo as a great player? Guys, you gotta dig a lot deeper. I stand by my comments: he was one of the best we had for his time, but he was not a great player.
I think it's better that we just agree to disagree and let it go, especially on a thread about another player.
There are, as I had mentioned earlier, runarounds the stated rules. PSV can't sign him to an enforceable binding contract until he is 18 but it can throw some money his and his family's way up till then. In that sense, he can't play for PSV's youth teams but he can practice with the academy. He may need a guardian to stay with in Eindhoven but usually those are arranged by the club as well.
You can read his whole story in this thread: Hugo Perez----Most underrated player in US history (video included)
If the clubs are smart, which I am assuming they are, they would have the parents sign some kind of binding contract when their 14 year old arrives that says the parents must return any money given to them during the 14-18 period if their son chooses to sign for another team. That would make it a lot tougher for the kid to just leave when he turns 18 (unless the new club wants to pick up that tab).
FIFA rules only apply to contracting players. If a kid under 18, but for development purposes preferably from the age of 11-12 (as Canadian Jonathan de Guzman did, who moved to Rotterdam on his own at 11/12 years), comes to the Netherlands he will just be a kid that goes to school as a normal kid and is groomed in our Academies. No FIFA can hinder that. We at Feyenoord, (considered the best Academy in the Netherlands) put the foreign kid in a foster home where he is being taken care of by his foster parents. So no mama and daddy necesary.
They can't do anything binding or it'll run afoul of the rules. The best they can do is to bring the entire family over but the kid better have a superstar potential in this case.
He's in between Holland and Italy. A family member will move to Europe. Only question is what club will develop him better
Leaving FIFA aside, I can't believe the payback clause would ever be upheld given the tenor of European labor laws. Hell, upholding something like that would be setting some very shady precedents in this country (imagine if a parent in NV signed a contract like that with a brothel...because a judge would imagine that). First club to try something like that in Europe will be the first club to kiss all that money goodbye.
Things like that happen all of the time in this country. I will give you a personal example: I worked for a company in FL and I was promoted and they moved me to Atlanta. In order to get a bonus and my moving expenses paid for, they made me sign a contract that stated I had to pay back the entire amount of the bonus and moving expenses if I left the company within 18 months of the move. I did eventually leave the company before the 18 months and they came after me for the money. This is the same concept as in my first post, just a different context. You are probably right about the European labor laws, though. In the scenario I previously described, the parents would be the ones entering the contract and not the kid. I just have a hard time believing that there are really no strings attached when the clubs spend all of this money on 13-14 year old kids. It's a huge gamble.
On the flip side: A company has to do that to save their ass from spending all that money on a employee that may eventually move to another job . With how people tend to move from job to job every could of years, they need to that with how the job industry is now. Gone are the days wehre mom and dad work for 1 company and retire after 30+ years.
Companies don't want employees to stay with them until they retire, anymore. If they can get 3 - 4 years out of an employee, they're happy! Then the employees are not vested (usually) in any benefits plans, and employers save a boxcar of money on each one.
Yeah, but you entered that contract in relation to YOUR labor, not that of a dependent child. Little bit of a difference there.
It is legal in Europe to make an employee sign a contract to stay for a certain period in exchange for payment for his/her development via courses or university and if not to pay back the amount spent. In the soccer case the student signs a contract to be able to follow the expensive soccer Academy course for free in exchange for a contract to be signed after the education is completed. There is no infringement of any law in that. You can bet that the club will come up with a professional contract the moment the player is legally able to sign it, in Dutch cases 16 year. See my post of the answer of Earnets Stewart regarding this issue. At the moment no Dutch club is using this lock in method yet, but I'm very much in favour of it as the shit EPL clubs do nothing but robbing our Academies of high potential talents at the age of 15 and then utterly destroy them. Of all the talents they snatched up no one was developed further by them and what is more damaging they didnot learn to play the Dutch way in the apprentice years when it really matters, thus ultimately destroying our Orange top standing future.
If Perez actually has a choice I would assume that Milan would be on top of the list. Joshua Perez trains with AC Milan
I don't think we can assume best club, so best academy, so that would be his choice. AC Milan is one of the few world countries that can buy top players of any age to place in front of Josh to make it harder for his path up the ladder making him have to switch clubs to get first time minutes, which logically delays development. I think its smarter to go to a club that has a solid reputation for development but a more logical and reasonable path to first team football. Then ideally he can get first team minutes as a 19 0r 20 yr old to develop his game further, making his destination to AC Milan when he's in his mid 20's rather than when he;s 15. JMHO. Here's hoping for PSV or Fiorentina.