Frankie's outta Switzerland now I guess we'll see exactly what Bayer was still holding onto as he negotiates with MLS http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/2003/01/28/hejduk_mls/
Yes, FIFA usually may not allow a transfer outside of Switzerland before July. All media in Germany also were reporting about negotiations of Hejduk with MLS for summer and not April.
how exactly in frankie still tied to leverkusen? was he actually loaned to st. gallen? i hope he gets his shet worked out---he belongs on a mls roster.
He is still under contract to BL. He was sent to Switzerland on a one year loan. The problem now, as noted by olaf, is that the rules only allow a player to be moved once a year. Coming to the US would constitute a second move. Technically, this can't be done until June. They can probably work something out with FIFA, because everybody agrees on the deal and, if necessary, we'll just slip ol' Sepp a few bucks or a French hooker.
I think this would also qualify as being a special circumstance, mainly becuase the MLS season is not the same as the European season.
Rule was made for protection of clubs and players. For clubs for better calculation and security to avoid that guys like Ronaldo change the teams with every offer they get. And for players rather the bad ones to avoid that they can be fired early. Speaking for an April transfer is that all parties agree and the sense of the rule is not violated. Speaking against it is that the rule loses its security as you then got to evaluate from case to case if you allow a transfer or not. In other words: single case is speaking for an exception, general aspects are speaking against it. Both arguing is possible, personally I'd probably tend to the general version as otherwise you're creating new trouble with other players who want to leave.
French hooker? That's so 1998. He's choosing between a Morroccan, a South African and an Egyptian as we speak. I think if his old employer, his new employer and the layer all agree, the one move per year rule can be waived. Especially since it's on a free.
This isn't that hard. All that has to happen is that Hejduk and Bayer agree to terminate the contract. No problem and Hejduk is an out of contract player free to work anywhere he wants. If Bayer wants to keep Hejduk around until June, that's its choice. But legally it is a no brainer.
Hmm, Id be inclined to go with the exception, largely because your moving from a winter league to a summer league, so the player isnt really club hopping mid season (which sounds like what the rule is against). Your not creating a problem since their are only very limited ways this could work, as their are a limited number of summer leagues. So I dont see a reason for Fifa not to approve an early transfer to accomadate seasonal differences. Now if he had move from MLS, to Switzerland, and wanted to go back to MLS, that would be another story.
He has no contract with Leverkusen anymore as he was loaned to St Gallen until the contract end with Leverkusen. With the contract termination in Switzerland he is not returning to Bayer. Also he is no real free agent as he voluntarily gave up his contract and therefore is not worth to be protected (a real free agent - someone who can sign wherever he wants - is only someone whose contract expired).
It doesn't really matter whether Hejduk's contract was with Leverkusen and he agree to spend this season on loan with St. Gallen in a separate agreement or his contract with Leverkusen was in some way assumed by St. Gallen. What matters is whether Hejduk currently has a contractual relationship with either party. I have no idea what is meant by the phrase "no real free agent" BUT it is a basic premise of contract law that the parties to a contract can mutually agree to end the contract earlier. If such an agreement exists -- and most press accounts at least strongly imply this -- then Hejduk currently has no employement contract with any soccer entitity. Therefore, under American law, there is absolutely no way for MLS to take the position that it can contract with Hejduk in June, but not in March. And I doubt that FIFA will care to illogicaly limit the definition of free agent as narrowly as Olaf proposes. It would make no sense as there is absolutely no reason to prevent an unwanted player like Hejduk from working. I doubt very much that FIFA wants to provoke an international legal fiasco over such a minor point. On the other hand, if there is a contractual realtionship between Hejduk and some Euro club that continues, then he has to wait until June.
Forget about basic contract law if you're discussing about soccer. Special soccer rules have to be applied, that's what you agree to when signing a contract as a soccer player. Hejduk could have worked if he hadn't terminated his contract, and also he can still work if he signs somewhere in Switzerland. DFB and DFL are with 100% guarantee applying the free agent rules like that (e.g. Miriuta terminated his contract with Cottbus in October and signed a new contract with Duisburg in November - but unlike a free agent who had no contract at the beginning of the season on July 1st, he had to wait until the next transfer window opens in January to get a playing permit. Reason is as I said that a player who terminates a contract, has to blame himself for being unemployed).
Martin, if I am understanding this correctly, it isn't matter the MLS signing Frankie to a contract, its a matter of Frankie getting a players permit to play in a FIFA sanctioned match, which MLS games are. Anyone who has played youth soccer knows, if you're not a registered player, you don't get on the field. Same kind of rules apply here.
US courts will not care about soccer rules, so forget about that. Despite your example, I doubt whether FIFA will provoke a potentially catyclismic confrontation with the US based on such a stupid theory that players who are to blame for their contracts being terminated can't wait.
Any rules regarding the regulation of non-professional soccer don't apply to professional soccer which is a business and subject to contract and anti-trust laws. Unless the USSF has been given explicit statutory authority to enforce these types of restrictive rules in professional soccer in the US, which I greatly doubt, this type of FIFA restriction would be (1) unenforceable under US contract law and (2) an unreasonable restraint of trade under antitrust law exposing MLS, the USSF and FIFA to treble damages and criminal sanctions [OK criminal sanctions are unnecessary].
What if Frankie recieved a drug suspension from FIFA? Assuming his contract was mutually terminated, would he be able to come the the MLS and play? He would not and it would have nothing to do with the status of his contract. It has to do with the rules FIFA has put in place regarding player eligiblity. The same "theory" applies here. FIFA has rules regarding transfers and how those transfers affect player eligibility.
The flip side of this argument is that MLS may not want to provoke a potentially catayclismic confrontation with FIFA.
Well that's a bit of a brain twister. I would not put it past some lawyer to make the argument that enforcing the FIFA drug suspension is a restraint of trade. But the drug suspension would have a hint of rationality to it and might not be an unreasonable restraint of trade. This is getting outside my comfort zone in this legal area. But I remain confident that prohibiting out-of-contract players from playing would be a big NO NO under US law. And don't confuse transfers, as FIFA regulations relating transfers should be a part of the player's contract with his club. But you can't use the contract to restrain a player who doesn't have a contract. I still doubt that this particular FIFA arrangement is legal in the US, that is if it actually exists outside of Olaf's mind.
Absolutely. And even more importantly, Hejduk, who could sue MLS and put pressure on them, might not want to be barred by FIFA either. I still don't think FIFA will do any such thing, but we shall see.
Fresh comparable case in Bundesliga: Hannover signed Gheorge Popescu this week. Popescu played for US Lecce until June 2002, then went to Dinamo Bucarest. There he terminated his contract and got a free agent in October. Now Hannover wanted to sign him, and before DFL could give the permit, they got a letter of FIFA rejecting this transfer as only one team change per season is possible. Hannover currently checks the legal possibilities on this one - it's exactly the same case as with Hejduk.
Don't be so sure. This topic has come up before on these boards, and some lawyers here have pointed to FIFA-friendly precedents involving the FIFA equivalent in track and field. (IAAF?)
It depends on the restraint invovled. I don't believe the track and field federation has ever tried to enforce a rule that out of contract athletes can't work. As I explained above, drug sanction cases don't cut it.
Hejduk transfer for April might be possible, a comment in kicker today: “Everybody is equal in the sense of the law, says article 3 of the Constitution. The reality is often different, also in soccer. DFL realises the demanded FIFA statutes consequently, while the World Association undermines their own law. Otherwise it is not explainable why on national level e.g. Marek Heinz, who was loaned from Hamburg to Bielefeld in January, only has the possibility to either stay in Bielefeld or return to Hamburg on July 1st. On international level, as in the case of Hannover’s Spaniards Fernando and Jose Manuel, who came from La Coruna to Hannover in August and now were transferred to FC Cordoba and Polideportivo Ejido, FIFA is responsible. And in Zurich they have the opinion that a loan is only being a transfer if a player is at least six months with a club. Bundesliga is taking the law more precise than the World Association. A quick adapting of the DFL handling is urgently necessary.” So, Hejduk did not already have two transfers within the season according to FIFA as he just was in Switzerland for five months. Problem is: we have the similar case of Popescu (see above) with Hannover – in this case FIFA rejected the transfer as the contract was terminated on a voluntarily base (what was the same with Hejduk and speaks against him). In this case DFL is further than FIFA as they do exceptions for involuntary unemployed players as Popescu is (as Bucarest was not able to pay him anymore; such reasons also don’t apply for Hejduk) – and for international transfers FIFA, and not the signing country, sets the conditions. The further question in his case remains whether he can leave to a third country as this matter was not ruled yet according to my knowledge (but could be if FIFA accepted Hannover’s protest against the Popescu rejection – but this still would not solve Hejduk’s case).