952237306756378624 is not a valid tweet id FIFA does not recognize unilateral options on contracts unless they fulfil a number of criteria
And US courts don't recognize the "authority" of outside parties to determine the validity or legality of a CBA that has been signed between a US company and a labor union.
What's this? Larin signed an agreement in 2017 acknowledging that Orlando had option years and they were valid? https://www.prosoccerusa.com/orland...ct-lions-take-action-besiktas-transfer-tweet/ Besiktas are also crazy thinking they are going to get the ITC for Larin anytime soon.
Well, MLS is sanctioned by FIFA. I think they settle outside the courts. It's not worth the risk for MLS
Well, for Larin's sake he better have a good European career because he just torpedoed any chance of coming back to MLS. And he better hope that CPL is around for him as a fallback.
The relevant portion: This is an open and shut case. Besiktas will be paying a transfer fee, and that fee has probably gone up to compensate Orlando for this PR debacle Besiktas caused.
Don't think there will be any courts at all, at least not with FIFA involved. FIFA has a whole lot to lose if they try to insert themselves into a dispute between a player and league when there is a CBA that guides the process. If they were to do so I don't think either MLS OR MLSPU has any choice but to file suit. You can't let other parties interject themselves into an business agreement. As for the sanctioning thing, not as big a deal as people think. If FIFA were to take punitive action because they were sued on the grounds of interfering with a labor agreement they would just find themselves in court again. Threatening or actually committing a harmful action against an individual/or group in order to make them break a valid contract (or, in this case, agreement) is also illegal. The issue at hand is does Larin have a contract with MLS. All of that is spelled out in CBA and any grievances are to be followed by the remedies provided in the CBA. FIFA doesn't have the authority to make a judgement on the legality of a fully enforceable labor agreement and the only parties that can are the Impartial Negotiator (as set forth in the CBA) or, less likely, the US Court system. But FIFA jumping in and saying "nope, we don't believe that part of the labor agreement is legal" would probably just open them up for a suit under tortious interference as they would be facilitating a breach of contract.
I don't think OCSC's position is that strong. They can't sue Larin or Besiktas in US courts. MLS can object to USSF forwarding his ITC to the Turkish federation but any dispute over that would be resolved by FIFA. If the options don't require exercise more than 6 months in advance, then FIFA might not enforce them. In the Camilo matter, he signed a pre-contract with Queretaro before Vancouver exercised their option, ie he wasn't under contract with Vancouver for the time he contracted with Queretaro.
I think there'll be a settlement where Besiktas end up getting Larin for far less than Orlando or MLS would have originally wanted.
The title of this thread amuses me, because that's pretty much exactly what a team option is. The player gives the team that right in signing the contract.
FIFA doesn't recognize unilateral options on contracts unless they fulfil a number of criteria...thats the key part
You keep saying that like it means something. In this case, according to reports, Orlando went the extra step of having the player sign a document saying he knew about the option years and accepted the deal that included them. Short of MLS contract writers being completely incompetent (which I highly doubt, especially after the Camillo saga) the contract is going to be valid.
Similar instance where FIFA ruled in favor of the player, even though he'd signed a contract where the club was unilaterally allowed to extend his contract by two years. The panel said that among other things the unilateral nature of the option was unfair. https://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/36858_725.pdf
If anyone wants to read some book on team options, here's a textbook. Bottom line up front is that, although FIFA dispute resolution chamber and court of arbitration generally favour the player when it comes to unilateral contract options, it's a bit more complicated, and FIFA DRC has not declared any unilateral contract option to be invalid. https://books.google.ca/books?id=y0...age&q=fifa unilateral contract option&f=false
another legal opinion http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/...part-1-a-european-legal-mess-by-saverio-spera http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/...-view-of-the-drc-and-the-cas-by-saverio-spera
That actually makes MLS looks bad optically if MLS relied on that "extra step" to try and make it stick this time. FIFA won't care about that. Several FIFA tribunal decisions make it clear unilateral contract options are not enforceable. Option years are rare in the football world outside of MLS baring exceptions which I don't think are met in regards to Larin's case. This looks like Restricted Free agency, however, does players have a recourse if they don't like what's being offered in that optional year like arbitration? What was Orlando offering Larin for that optional year? I think for FIFA to agree to that, the raise would have to be quite substantial which I doubt. It really looks like Orlando just wants to get paid. I still think it gets settled off court and Orlando aren't getting the money they were hoping to receive.
So rare that the most recent MLS signing (Jack Price by the Rapids on Friday) had one according to reports. So we assume MLS doesn't know about these rules and just wrote the contract however they want why? Um, yeah. Considering they have a player under contract I would expect they would want to get paid. Duh? It gets settled out of court, but Orlando is going to get generally what they want (its a negotiation, you never get your first offer).
If you're only citing one case then yes it's rare. In regards to Larin, I still maintain MLS is wrong here. MLS knows the rules, hence the "extra step" to try to go around it. It shows intent to not follow FIFA convention. Of course they want to get paid, but it looks like it's more about the money than Larin staying with the team or the validity of the contract. They don't want to lose him for nothing but then it's on Orlando who should have offered him a longer contract from the get go. "Optional year" without any mean to contest it or decline it is really a questionable practice. I know it's not like that in Hockey or Baseball. Its a cheap way to keep a player at a below market value and FIFA doesn't recognize those. It's clear. Looks like Besiktas wants Larin ASAP but if they go through the whole process, they won't get Larin as soon as they would have hoped for but FIFA are highly likely to side with Beskitas. The amount paid would depend on how bad and how fast they want Larin to play for them. I get the reasoning behind it, but it makes MLS look very bad in the FIFA world and lowers their perception from other top leagues.
As an aside, though they might not currently have representatives in the Players Union, these kids signing GA and Homegrown deals need to get 3 year deals or 5 year deals without team options. Especially if they want to use the league to spring to Europe. This needs to be done because they are getting stuck in this battle between lowball European offers and MLS trying not to set a low market for selling players. Bestikas wants Larin for FREE, not ASAP or they would have paid a fee last summer or last winter. It's the same thing with Erik Palmer Brown. They had a pre-negotiated price of (IIRC) 2 mil with Porto after his loan. Porto tried to get him for cheaper and SKC said no. He ended up leaving on a free a year later.