I'd have to agree with superdave (quick hug) after reading all of this thread and checking out the articles on all the links. There's really no way around the rule, within the way the rule is written. However, if this rule was enacted to prevent exploitation - an exception might be made in cases where exploitation would be unlikely. Such as - the rule is REWRITTEN - to state that teams who want to sign players under 18 years must sign them to a minimum 1 million dollar contract and guarantee a stipend for boarding and schooling in case an injury or something else threatens their careers. The rule, as is, allows for no such manuevering. But if a lawyer argues that the "spirit" of the law is player protection - then a minimal standard of monetary protection could be established and the law changed to conform with the standard. A thought, at least.
There have been numerous articles about Adu and it was all started with his agent talking to the press before the U17 wc. There's been nothing even remotely substantial since. I'd at least like to see a real quote from a club that they're looking into it. Of course clubs are interested in him and they'll probably be following his progress for years to come but don't mistake that with clubs actively going to FIFA asking how they can get around the rules. First off FIFA isn't going to give any club anything but the standard "read the rules" answer unless they are seriously and publicly challenged. It's not like Chelsea will go to FIFA and say "hey we like this kid and just wanted to know if the rules apply to us” and FIFA says "nah, we were just screwing around do what ever you want". It's going to take a legal challenge and that is way beyond a club taking interest and reading the rules. I’m certainly not saying that the rules are set in stone but it’s going to take a lot of work (legal and political) to get them to even consider changing.
Here's something I thought I'd throw out. I read somewhere that Freddie is in his senior year of high school(skipped 2 grades at some point) and will be graduating next spring(May/June). I'm not sure if this is correct, and maybe someone can find out, but if it is true this might help his case for a transfer next summer. They could argue he's completed his education and is technically an adult. Oh no, I've been sucked into the speculation too.
Well outside of me in the next couple of days getting a JD in contract law, getting that membership on the FIFA Executive board, or getting my crystal ball back from the shop, the only thing I can do is show you what high placed people presumably more in the know than any of us have said, and glean from the FIFA regs posted online what I'd precieve as a venue in which they could argue for an exception. All of this of course is highly speculative, I've tried to make several substanitive arguments as to how it might or could happen. You've simply maintained an unwaivering belief that the rule will hold up. We shall see. In response to MichealM's post. Freddy along with the other U-17s was/is at the Branderton Training academy, a specialised sports school where they all train and recieve their education. It's not your typical high school environment. If you're speculating that a mitigating factor in his decided lack of 'exploitation' might be his high school diploma, I'd have to agree with you that might be the case. Again we shall see. In terms of all this just being a rumor, of course it is, and again agreeing with MichealM, I don't think that this rule would be challenged without a legal or political challenge. I would think that challenge is more likely to occur through whatever the proper veunes FIFA has in order to solve these types of things, rather than in a judicial court, but anyways. I certainly don't think that Freddy is going to be signed by any club other than one in MLS any time soon. I'm just open to the possability of it happening, and see some ways in which it potentially could.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. I would like to thank the poster (was it maxim?) who pointed me to the article stating that the rule is due for review in 2 years. The article was written Jan 2, 2002. Like I've written somewhere, this may be what all the hullaballoo is all about. If the real purpose of the rule is to protect children and not the 3rd world FAs and clubs, then a minimum salary for U-18s would make alot of sense. And maybe Chelsea et al., are aware that FIFA is leaning in that direction. Or is being pushed by the G-14. I still wanna know how Freddy can get a WP that Bobby Convey can't.
MichaelM, you're talking about the legal concept of emancipation. I don't know how universal that concept is. I do know that the US school system is pretty unique in its emphasis on every child having a shot at college. I think you may be using American concepts that won't work for nations where parents have to pay for any schooling, so tons of kids drop out when they hit their mid-teens. Also, to my mind, allowing that as an exception a) would be counter to the very clear and simple rules and b) defeat the entire purpose of the rule anyway. Any child who signs a pro contract with a club 5,000 miles away has a pretty good argument for emancipation. Yeah I know, they say stuff like this You're really starting to piss me off. There's no basis in the rules for there to be an exception. If you see one, tell me what it is, and don't base it on some bulls*** you pulled out of your ass. Base it on the regs. No, it's a figment of your imagination. You and I have different definitions of the word "substantive." But if it was you, thanks, sincerely, for the press release from when FIFA put out this rule.
Well I'll add to that, I'll tell you the result the next time I have pettition FIFA as to my playing status and whether or not I can transfer to Norwich City. I don't know the rules in and out. To me if there's an entity that says it settles disputes between players then that's the one I would be looking at. Arbitration doesn't nessicarily have to mean finacial arbitration. I can try to make another attempt at reading the leagaliese that is the FIFA regulations, but that's what I've come up with so far. Ultimately, and thankfull for the benifit of the sane the final interpritations of FIFA's regulations and rules do not fall on your shoulders. So like I said, we'll see.
maxim, arbitration is NOT for overturning rules. It's for settling disputes about the interpretation of rules. For example, the Andy Messersmith case. It was an arbitrator that ruled that the reserve clause only referred to the year after a contract ran out, and could not be enforced in perpetuity. It was NOT an arbitrator who ever got the case of whether or not the reserve clause was legal. Think of the WP appeal panel as a kind of arbitrator. The FA rules have a straight mathematical for WPs, but the rule includes a right to appeal, to allow great players who otherwise wouldn't qualify to get a WP. The panel arbitrates whether a player is worthy.
Not sure how reliable is this source -Guardian -Rumor Mill as heading/site http://football.guardian.co.uk/rumourmill/ but it contains the following: Another day, another petty victory for Chelsea in their fight for Premiership supremacy. Today there's two reasons for Fergie to burst a few more capillaries. The first is much Adu about nothing really. It concerns the race for the rights to chat up underage American wonderkid Freddie Adu . The Sun says that Chelsea are ready to cough up the £3.2m the 14-year-old's agents are asking for first refusal when he comes of autograph-writing age in June 2005. so 5 million dollar U.S. for 'first refusal'. How the hell did the Guardian dig up that one? (probably I heard it from a guy who heard it from someone who read it in a soccer forum in the Chelsea board). Nice.
I don't really believe in this I just figured I needed to throw something out there. This is interesting, do you know if the 3 year max contract is part of what's going to be reviewed? I'd say that would be a huge mistake. We don't need 14 year old indentured servants, even if they are multimillionaires.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. But the point is that YOU don't know what these clubs are doing or not doing. You are speculating that big time clubs a) haven't contacted Adu's agent and b) haven't informally inquired of their FIFA contacts about this rule. None of that is going to turn up in an article as anything other than rumor. Just because you don't read it in the paper doesn't mean it hasn't happened. And, as you correctly point out, it doesn't mean it has happened. And yes, this has officially devolved into a silly semantics argument.
Just to be clear, I think you're probably more right than not. My only point is that the rule hasn't been challenged and there seem to be a bunch of people looking into HOW to challenge it in Freddy's case. As of now, however, there is no basis for Freddy to sign a contract. On that we totally agree.
I have absolutely no disagreement with this. And yes of course its for settling disputes about interpretations of the rules. I believe if these stories are accurate about clubs having interest that's exactly what's giong to have to happen FIRST. I've never believed that Adu is just going to sign a contract with a big club in europe just because they don't feel the rules apply to them. Anything and everything that they do based on the current rules would have to go through some sort of judicial or poltical appeals process. I still think instead of barking about what we all think could happen or how it could happen, it'd be more interesting to debate if Freddy recieved a signing bonus, or any player, then was loaned back to his domestic league. How exploitive do you feel that would be?
maxim...to me, by definition, any contract you sign with a typical 15 year old is exploitative. And that goes for Chelsea, or MLS. If you're asking what I think would be a fair rule, I'd still ban U-16s from going overseas under any circumstances. I'd allow 16s and 17s to sign abroad a) with a parent's permission and b) a substantial minimum salary. I mean big bucks, like 1 million dollars over 3 years. And I think FIFA should also set aside a portion of that until the player turns 18, maybe 1/3. To me, that would marry together concern for these kids, with a realistic assessment of the international market for players.
well earlier in the thread i proposed that if a player was 'loaned' back to his domestic side then it could be a win, win, win, for all three sides. i suppose it's more of a compramise then seemingly a pretty strict rule that they have in place now. but i do think those situations would be LESS exploitive, but still contractually binds a kid at a very young age to then eventually be sold as a commodity or shipped off to a foreign land the moment he turns 18 or whatever age it may be. i think indentured servitude is probably a good way to put it in that case, because these clubs would demand at least 3 year contracts so they could either use the player or sell him in his 18th year. you might have a lot of kids retiring from soccer at 19 years old... however, i do think a Landon Loan type set up would at least alleviate some of the problems with buying and selling these young kids.
EU Membership Hey, my kid is golden now that Lithuania is joining EU. Only barrier in his way is becoming as good as Freddy. He thinks that will be no problem.
Dave - I dissagree with the high signing idea. While Freddy may, and I stress may, be able to handle it, he would be by far the exception. How many teenagers do you know that would be able to handle a 500 a week let alone 5000? But I do agree there needs to be some financial incentive for foreign clubs NOT to sign young start and export them from their home country to young. I like maxim's idea of the loan back. Perhaps, there could be an allowance that a foreign club can sign a young star, but some of the contract can to a trust like fund. For what purpose, I'm not sure. But I think part of the regulations should be to have the player, under that age of 18, be loaned back to his home country, all costs going to the foreign club that bought the player.
This information from the Chicago Daily Herald may have some relevance to the discussion which we had. It also has to do with Freddy on another level of all those nitwits who think he would jump to Ghana at a Senior level. http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=37889132
No details? Nothing about an MLS loan or anything? Any sources mentioned or can we file this under the rumor file?