The Art of VAR - Other Teams Thread[R]

27 - Geburtstagskind Jadon #Sancho (@BVB) erzielte 27 #Bundesliga-Tore als Teenager - mehr als jeder andere Spieler der BL-Geschichte. Juwel. pic.twitter.com/aLXj7d6ofC

— OptaFranz (@OptaFranz) March 25, 2020

 

There are two things that baffle me about the football business.

The first is the transfer fee. In almost any other line of work, the employee works a contract and if he gets a better offer, he exercises a notice period (or goes on gardening leave) and then works for another employer. The other employer doesn’t pay a “transfer fee”. If they want a move, footballers should be able to buy out their contract by paying their employer the rest of the wages left on their deal as damages. The idea of paying £200 million to an employer to let their employee join you is a bit ridiculous.

The second is clubs paying a players agent. it’s a blatant conflict of interest for an agent to represent not a club and a player, because those two parties have diametrically opposes interests - the club want to pay as little salary as possible and the player wants as much salary as possible. The agent represents the plays and the player should therefor pay the agent - the club should pay its own employees or agents if they are required to make a deal.

Removing these two practises would ensure that money in football flows from fan to club to player with far less being siphoned off to pay for unnecessary stuff.

 

Increased revenue usually implies growth of a subject, which also implies increased cost. So what? Secondly, every business "speculates" about customers or even better does projections.

I have zero issue with clubs using financial mechanisms as any other subject or person does. You want loan? Sure, take it. IF your business can support it. And we can determine if business can support loan and how much. I imagine?

If you would say we need to make football more suistanable and remove certain speculators and corruption i would agree completely. But considering you are supporting loss of 4B and basically representing "let`s save the field, by first burning it completely" ( not including domino effect it would have on other subjects in which again the most vulnerable subjects would be hit the hardest and not multi-millionares ) .... Well....

So instead of doing ideological battles about how economy should work, give me certain figures on your perception of "healthy business". You can take RM for example.

p.s: Hoeneß lol. You are pulling out a guy who is crying about the same shit for years, because he knows Bundesliga is basically uncompetitive to the rest. So, give me a break with Mr. "Tax evasion" guy.

 

If idea of paying 200M is ridiculous, then why paying 60M in remaining wages is not ridiculous? And for the irony, of course players would not pay that "damages" but clubs to whom players would next join.

How about instead we start practicing full liability for individuals in charge who make shit decisions due to incompetence or especially corruption? Just a thought.

 

Do you see me pulling them out?

I don`t consider certain financial mechanisms as bad on itself. While what Barca is doing is bad considering they are doing financial malversations. Hence they should be fully liable for it to the full extent of the law.

You could argue about bringing more romantic side of the sport back. But, it is not about Love. It is about resources and more specifically what would happen in case of football going busto.

The millionaries who you keep mentioning and trying to make this about them, would be fine and dandy. Common people not so much. My club does not benefit when Slovenian football with NZS at the helm and other business subjects experience drastically reduced revenue. The contrary.

 

If you’ve contracted to play for a club for a period and you want to leave early, and you can’t come to an agreement with the other party, you should pay out the remainder of the value of the contract. Just the same as if a club wants to move a player on, if they can’t come to an agreement with the player they should either pay out the remainder of the contract or abide by the contract. This is pretty much the same as in any other industry. If I sign a contract to do some work for you and then decide I don’t want to do it, if you don’t release me from the correct I have to pay you the value of it, whether that’s £200 or £200 million, the principle is the same.

The transfer fee on the other hand is not the value of the contract, it’s an artificial value for the right to registration of the player. What other industry has such a mechanism?

Did you know that you can do more than one thing at a time? Did you know that pretty much no one is in favour of more corruption or less accountability?

Your argument here is as sensible as saying we should also insist on full liability for murder and torture instead of abolishing transfer fees and conflicted agents in football. It’s nonsense.

 

Pelé: "Today, Cristiano is the best in the world, although Messi should not be forgotten. However, Cristiano is more stable and Messi is not a goalscorer. It's not my fault but I think I was better than [Cristiano and Messi], because everyone compares them to me." pic.twitter.com/bvt2qJQUFA

— M•A•J (@Ultra_Suristic) March 25, 2020

 

Serious zassss delivered by Pele.

Especially the part about messi not being a goalscorer and how he shouldn't be forgotten.

Ahaha

 

It is not necessarily the same considering substantial differences between industries. Which is one of the reasons behind Countries having different types of contractual agreements and not just "contractual agreement - singular".

Secondly. What is the "value of the contract" and who determines it? I consider transfer fee as "value of the contract" which should be determined by employer. If employee disagrees, then next time include specific buyout clause.

Thirdly, elaborate further your suggestion. Possibly in specific example. For example Messi is in his first year sitting on 60M gross wages. He wants to leave. There is no transfer fee. Instead he must pay "damages". How much? 4 years x 60M gross, or just the amount he has received - 60M gross?

What about other investment in him which can and should be monetized? Can the club for whom he wants to play, pay that for him? When he can leave the club? Anytime that he wants? What happens with registration period considering there are just two per year? Etc...?

The difference is we are insisting on full liability for murder and torture. While in case of financial malversations, we often don`t.

 

The amount of service that he still owes them... which would be equal to the amount that he hasn't received yet (3 years), he is obliged to provide 4 years of service, while he has provided 1, so he has to pay for the other 3.

Actually from what I've seen in other industries, the amount that either party has to pay in order to not do the work they're supposed to do is usually less than the worth of the contract, like for a 100M contract your company has got to pay 50M... or the full amount at the worst case scenario. But in football it's a super inflated number.

 

In how many industries can employee monetize his work also outside of his wages? Example being Messi monetizing Barca being a giant and earning shit-ton of endorsements which produces massive revenue. Which in case of his situation gets even more important considering what Barca did for him at the young age, and how he has developed because of it.

What is value of that?

 

According to L'Equipe, PSG President Nasser Al-Khelaïfi expressed his opinion on this delicate issue for the economy of French clubs, stating that he was in favor of reducing wages.

PSG spends 371 million euros only on salaries.

https://www.marca.com/futbol/liga-francesa/2020/03/25/5e7ba603268e3e21558b46c9.html

 

Many people have more than one stream of income. I do and I‘m in a fairly traditional profession.

The fact that an employer has helped increase a persons earning power is also to be expected across all industries. If you work at a place for years but haven’t increased your skill set, earning capacity and opportunities, then you are wasting your life.

I trained at a firm coming out of uni, I learned to be a professional and now can earn multiple times what I did then. It doesn’t mean that my training firm now gets a claim to my income now. They paid me shitty trainee wages to offset the fact that they would incur training costs, and I worked stupid hours as a trainee, I once didn’t feel the sun directly on my skin for a few months, I was spending all daylight hours at the office for weeks on end. I don’t owe them anything now.

Barca did the same, paying Messi youth wages and giving him hormones and training until he became a superstar. Now they get superstar performance and pay superstar wages.

You seem very invested in keeping the transfer system as it is. Why do you think it’s so good?

 

That's all nice and dandy, but in the end player X is paid Y millions (wages + %image rights), and that's what he owes them in case he wanted to leave.

Cinema is like that in the sense that a superstar's effect off the field/film might be as important as his acting, if not more. And you can be sure that if for some reason an actor couldn't continue his work or wanted to join another movie, he wouldn't have to pay 1 billion $.

 

It was even more ridiculous pre-Bosman. In the Bosman case the players contract had expired, but his old club still wouldn’t release his registration without being paid by the new club. Someone explain how that makes any sense? The registration system is a scam, I can’t see any reason for it to exist aside from helping club owners control employees. If someone can explain to me why it benefits the players or the fans, I’m all ears.

Football throughout its history has been an anachronism in terms of employment norms, and it has a way to go before it catches up with the modern world.

 

It is not that i perceive current system as peachy as you say. I would definitely do certain changes. It is just that i am invested against certain ideas that are presented as solutions. Example being football without fees.

 

I think a change is needed, but I dont like what you proposed. Small clubs will get wrecked, they can only afford smaller salaries so they will get paid peanuts when players leave. This means less incentive to develop young players for teams that live on big clubs paying good money for their youngsters.

 

This is a fair point.

Limiting the number of players a team can have on loan might be a way of dealing with that. The big clubs now stockpile talent but that only works if the loan system allows them to effectively “rent out” the players registration. If there is no registration system, there is less incentive for big clubs to stockpile that talent because they cannot use them or make money off selling them. So there should be more players available for smaller clubs to hire.

And teams (even smaller ones) will always hire the best players they can afford, so if a youth team player is good, they will usually find a slot.

It’s like saying that a firm won’t train a good trainee because they’re afraid they will get poached by a bigger firm. It happens, but if you treat employees well they will generally either stay or they will leave on good terms. The incentive is always there to train good staff.

 

Cracking on super agents. Ending "child trafficking". Increasing home-grown quotas and forcing clubs into more production. Maybe including some sort of tax in super-transfers which then gets directed into grassroots, etc... Tons of options.

Removing transfer fees would be a major mistake. Imagine what happens with clubs, especially producing ones. They would be wiped clean in a second for peanuts.

 

p.s: Also removing fees could have massive impact on wages, which could rise into stratosphere considering clubs could redirect what was once fee funds into player wages to lure them.