Tottenham is now pushing back on paying money I thought they had already sent to MLS: http://www.espn.com/soccer/tottenha...n-solidarity-payment-claim-for-deandre-yedlin
Sh!t Spurs claiming that Crossfire is not entitled to solidarity payment as it's a pay to play development club.
Crossfire states he was with them from 2006-2010. His player card says 2008. How does Yedlin playing ODP impact things as well? They imply in the article he received subsidized training. But it doesn't confirm he got help imo.
These clubs will look in envy to Dutch clubs Willem II and RKC that, if the transfer of Frenkie de Jong from Ajax to PSG for at least 75 million takes place, will receive resp. 11.25 and 3 million.
I've been making this point over and over and over again in these discussions. Solidarity payments aren't in the FIFA regs as some kind of charity. There's a purpose. That purpose is negated by pay to play.
Bingo. Crossfire isn't building their own asset, that is then taken away from them. Even if they were pay to play, so what? They don't have an adult pro team for Yedlin to play with. What's he supposed to do? Not play professional soccer? I'd like to see the contract between Yedlin's legal guardians and Crossfire that indicates that they are owed a cut of his hide if he plays professionally.
Why did none of you jump into the Twitter discussion I was having with someone who insisted Spurs weren't challenging Crossfire's right to payment? This guy claimed Spurs were just saying they didn't want to pay MLS twice. I asked if Carlisle's reporting was wrong, and he said no. Where's my backup?
http://www.espn.com/soccer/soccer-t...sue-solidarity-payment-after-chelsea-transfer "Klein said his reluctance is also influenced by the fact that PA Classics is a pay-to-play club, and has already been compensated in terms of developing its players. "If we were a club that wasn't pay-to-play, it would be a whole different ball game," he said. "Our kids pay to play, so that's how we make our money. Now, we scholarship a lot of kids, but that's where the difference is for me a little bit. If we were one of those European clubs where everyone is free, or an MLS club where everyone is free, and signed him as a pro ... we're not even a pro club."
Throughout the article I like the attitude of the PA Classics' director. Although it seems like the club won't push for anything, it still may be beneficial to have a positive relationship with CP.
The pay for play nature of the various youth clubs that the US has will likely be the deciding factor in how FIFA rules, IMHO. I could definitely see them "splitting the difference", so to speak, by saying that the pay to play clubs do not qualify for solidarity payments, but that free to play clubs do.. Maybe even require the payments be made, but make it to a "scholarship fund" at USSF so scholarships aren't necessarily paid by the non-scholarship kids on a pay for play club?
Well, he will be an excellent marketing tool for him. That alone could offset the loss of solidarity payment in the form of increased rates, # of kids, etc.
So MLSPA's Bob Foose has clarified the players stance, which is good in the sense that I think there had been a lot of wishful-thinking motivated misinformation about where they stood floating around:
short sighted and dumb. It works for ever other country in the world but is not fair to US players. WTF!?! Also I hope FIFA does split the difference on pay to play vs free to play clubs.
This piece contains many opinions (not facts) that are just dumb to the hilt. Anybody thinks Arjen Robben's negotiation power to get the wages he wanted from the clubs he signed for were such that he had to settle for X,XXX,XXX.xx minus (compensation + solidarity payments)? https://www.nrc.nl/apps/voetbal/kaart/?speler=Arjen Robben Virgil van Dijk couldnot get what he wanted from Liverpool, because they subtracted those sums from his potential wages? Really?
No, the point is that once they sign those guys and pay those fees, that's less money they can spend on the rest of the roster.
Virgil van Dijk reportedly is going to earn around 55 million €€ during his Liverpool contract. Does anybody really think that Liverpool has deducted 845000 €€ from that amount and if VvD didnot agree with that they would have said...."well, sorry...no deal then..." Obviously these guys operate in an environment that isnot like a true soccer environment and donot get the workings of the transfer business in Europe.
Yeah, right. It does tremendously impact the capabilities of the clubs signing players in Europe. Real big sums only are payed in Europe and only by the bigger clubs of the leagues. The amount is negligible in budget terms for those clubs (see the tables with the %%). A far bigger impact have the agent fees that are tenfold the sums of the solidarity payments and even twenty fold. When talking about US clubs, they are either on the receiving end and most of the times also on transfer sums that are minor. If one should start barking, take a tree that has more fruit to pluck from. Those guys from the US players union are imbecils. Take on the agents, that's the biggest drain on budgets that could be relocated.
Yeah but I feel it is a cartel argument. The US Clubs and players agree to this so they keep wages low and never have to pay the youth clubs. But MLS gets all the Transfer money and shares with no one should a kid make Europe
You know what else worked for every country in the world? The ability to demand a fee and not let a player sign for a free transfer if they were out of contract. The Bosman ruling blew that up in the mid-90's but FIFA and UEFA fought for 5 years until they finally made it a mandate worldwide that a team couldn't charge for a player that was out of contract. It is important to note that during the Fraser v MLS trial that FIFA rules still allowed a practice that according to the EU was a restraint of trade. It would have qualified as that in the US as well, so that is why there was a remark about USSF not doing that in the ruling. So, what does this have to do with solidarity payments and training compensation? Well, you know when FIFA started working with associations on training compensation and solidarity payments? The same time they succumbed to the pressure and eliminated the requirements that a club get paid for a player regardless of contract status. Here is a circular from 2002 talking about training compensation and here is an article from the Irish Times in 2003 talking about solidarity payments. Both of these mechanisms were designed as an end-around in order to get around aspects of the Bosman ruling and allowing clubs to still get paid for a player that they don't have a contractual relationship with. They prettied it up by making it only apply to "youth training" and found ways to make it work within EU law (since that was where most of the pressure would come from) but it is, in effect, an extension of a system in which clubs could collect money on players and to keep wages for them down.