I assume the reason is not the length of the contract but the fact that, at least in the US, anyone under 18 can not sign a binding contract.....
But they can with parental consent, right? Are you saying MLS, Nike, Sierra Mist and Campbell's all signed Freddy Adu to non-binding contracts worth millions of dollars? I'm no lawyer, but seems doubtful.
Normally,the parental consent is binding, but only until he turns 18, and then he would need to re-execute on his own behalf. IIRC,this was why LD's contract with Bayer had to be redone when he became an adult.....
No, we're talking about the FIFA rule against the international transfer of children. As for a 3 year consulting contract...first of all, I want to thank everyone for joining me in the Land of Absurd Speculation. Second...wouldn't it go both ways? I mean, the team wouldn't WANT to sign a contract that goes beyond the 18th birthday, because the contract would specify what actions are required of the employee, and playing matches couldn't be in there. So if the club wanted to play the kid, even in the reserves, when he turns 18, they'd have to have the consulting contract end then.
Ok,I thought he was wondering why the hypothetical consulting contract,which arguably gets by this rule(not likely),would have to expire at 18.
Actually, I have always wondered how this works also. In both DC and Maryland, contracts signed by individuals under 18 are NEVER for the juvenile, but it is binding to the corporation. It doesn't matter if there is parental consent or not because the juvenile would not be competent to form a contract. At any point, Freddy can break the contract. That being said, there are many reasons why he would never do this. First, his contract would probably still be enforceable for FIFA purposes. Any team that wanted to sign him would still have to pay a fee. Second, if Freddy breaks one of these contracts he would only be able to collect for work that he has actually done, so his signing bonuses would be in jeopardy. Third, noone would ever want to sign him to another contract. BTW, I am not an attorney yet, but I will be in 8 days.
As I said in my original post on the subject, "they could cancel the contract when he turns 18 and give him a pro deal." Anyway, I'm not sure I agree 100% that we're in the LOAS -- though I agree that we're speculating. The reason I started trying to think up "backdoors" was specifically because of HSV's language: "We are presently trying to overcome the problems concerning transfers [of players who are] under 18 - there are a lot of complicated rules." "We are also in contact with the American association, with (USSF director) Tom King, and are trying to get some help if it is possible." "This is a dumb situation. The rule has only been in existence for two years from FIFA. The idea was so that you can't just take a bunch of players from South America and Africa for little money. I think for players from America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Japan, that it is a different situation." "I have an appointment next week with Tom King. He is here anyway because the World Cup and the base camp is in Hamburg. And we are going to discuss the possible things we can do [to make it happen]." Now, if the club and the USSF things there are things they can do to make it happen, what do you think they are? Overturning the rule? Some kind of exemption for kids from Washington State? Or some sort of maneuvering, perhaps like what we're discussing here? I don't have any illusions that I've cracked the code, but I do think it's reasonable that clubs around the world are interested in trying to do so. Obviously, an EU passport would clear PZ's situation right up. But that doesn't seem to address the larger issue, which HSV has seemingly gone on record as wanting to tackle. Given the club's own words, I don't think it's ridiculous to try to figure out what they have in mind -- particularly if the USSF goes on record as supporting its efforts. Personally, I have a feeling Tom King (someone I don't know and have never met or seen) might deny holding some of the viewpoints being attributed to him in this article if asked point-blank by a reporter -- it would seem like a bad business to have someone in Germany saying your national federation's own officials want to find ways around both FIFA rules and its own player development system. Can YA write a follow-up story in which King is contacted, please?
I was discussing the general rule that the minor could not be bound except sometimes by parental consent, of course, different jurisdictions may differ somewhat. For example, there was a recent Florida case(where I practice) on the extent that a parent could waive the minor's right to sue, involving the child's African safari. IIRC,the lower appeals court said the parent could not waive the rights but the Fla Sup. Ct. disagreed.....
Well, but I am not talking about the Bundesliga. Getting a work permit is a completely different topic than the restriction of foreign players as well.
Well, the two are sort of tied together. If you're deemed underage for legal purposes, you can't sign a deal, which means you can't consent to a transfer or a contract, etc. Which still makes me think that HSV wants to be upfront about it and have its deal approved by FIFA instead of going around the FIFA rules. They're probably tendering it as a reverseal of the old NBA "hardship" clause, showing that a contract can be allowed when the player's well-to-do family is capable of comprehending the ramifications of a contract, especially when compared to some poverty ravaged African family who'd sign anything just to get out of that hellhole.
That isn't true. Freddy signed two years ago, and the rule was in place then. The same things teams have been trying to pull, without success, since the rule began (IIRC) Jan 1, 2002. As for the purpose of the rule...it's ostensibly to protect the kids. And there were some real abuses. But if that was FIFA's sole or even main purpose, they could just set a minimum payment, so kids aren't ripped off, some guarantee of schooling for those under age 17, and guaranteed air fare for the player and family back to his home if the contract is ended. But the African confederation has alot of power, because it has alot of votes, and the rule also has the effect of protecting African clubs.
The reverse hardship argument is interesting, but like I wrote above, if that's what FIFA wanted, they would have written a different rule. OK, but FIFA isn't making rules about the age of consent for contracts in all its member nations. That's a separate issue from FIFA's desire to prevent the exploitation of children. An analogy would be, if the UN led an effort to get its member nations to sign a treaty designed to prevent the international sexual exploitation of children. That would be a separate issue from the age of consent to have sex or get married in each of the member nations.
But this is because FIFA is capable of affecting the inter-federational policies - its raison d'être anyway - rather than intra-federational, where the individual FIFA members have some form of a local regulatory autonomy with the local/national/state laws taking precedent on all legal matters.