Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:49 am

It is now 10 years since Jean Marc Bosman challenged UEFA and his club RFC Liege in the infamous case which now bears his name. The effects of which case have been felt throughout the footballing world. Before Bosman a player who was registered with a club could not leave the club even after his contract had run out, without the permission of the club or a transfer fee being paid. To give an example... if Michael Ballack had been with Bayern Munich in 1996 rather than 2006 Chelsea would have had to pay a transfer fee for Ballack even though his contract had expired, and even then Bayern would be under no compunction to accept as Ballack could not play for any other club while Bayern held his registration.Today as we all know a player is only tied to a club for as long as his contract.
The effect of this change was a dramatic switch in power from the club to the players, From the club holding the player to ransom ,it was now the players holding the clubs to ransom. Liverpool were the first club to feel the full force of the new legislation when S Mcmanaman left to go to Real Madrid on completion of his contract, without Real Madrid having to pay a transfer fee.
The second and less widely known change that the Bosman case made was to remove the restrictions on foreign players. Previously each club was restricted to 3 foreign players(Including EU nationals) and 2 assimilated players(in England that meant Scottish/Welsh or Irish)
This meant that clubs could now field a team composed entirely of foreign players were as before they had to have at least 6 players from their own country of origin.
Bosman case

In my opinion the main effects of the Bosman case have been:-1/money lost to the game through large contracts to players and payments to agents etc.
2/The richest(buying) clubs became stronger and the poorer(selling) clubs became weaker.
3/The richest leagues (Spain/Italy/England/Germany) became stronger as they could attract the best players and the poorer leagues (the rest)became weaker as they lost their best players.
4/Less incentive for clubs to develop talent as the player could see out his contract and then leave for free.
5/Pressure to sell(cash in) players before their contract runs out.
I personally think that the effect of Bosman has overall been of benefit to the EPL football watcher who now gets to see stars from all over the world, but detrimental to the die hard football fan who now sees the star players he has worshipped leaving in pursuit of more money. Money has become the new god of football, as clubs seek to satisfy the ever increasing demands of players who if the fancy takes them can see out their contract and leave the club with nothing but memories, but is this any worse than the previous regime when the clubs took the bulk of the money and a player could be unhappy yet trapped at a club for years.

Liverpool have been both the casualty and the beneficiary of Bosman transfers. Some of the major Bosmans were OUTS :-S.Mcmanaman, M.Owen(not a Bosman but reduced t/fee due to last year of contract . INS :- M.Babbel, V.Smicer (again not a Bosman but reduced fee).

by **AussieKopite** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:55 am

Hey Saint, that was a really good analysis. I think you'd fit into the advanced debate section.

My opinion since the Bosman ruling is that it now means that a club must do more to keep the players happy. The players play for who they want (in most cases) rather being held at a club where they are unhappy and then cop a bit of flack from the fans. At the same time, it is a shame to see a club held to ransom as well. I'd say I'm mostly for the Bosman ruling but with some reservations. Its important for the players to be mature enough to allow a dialog between them and club.

by **73-1141222089** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:44 am

Having been a contract worker for most of my adult life, I strongly support the Bosman ruling...

We all work for a living. Obviously this includes footballers. If an employer has the right to hold one of its employees back BEYOND his agreed contract, then this can't be right... It infringes on an individual's right of freedom of choice. If someone has served out his time while under contract, then he has earned his pay... With all employment contracts, clauses are written to protect the employer should the employee not perform his or her job to the expected minimum requirements.... ie... contracts can be terminated due to various reasons like insurbodination, gross incompetence, negligence, failure to execute contract requirements etc etc...

This is fair for the employers..... By the same token, it is an inconceivable notion to me that the employee should not be protected in a similar way....
Once a contract is completed, why should a proffesional (or any other person for that matter) be prevented from taking up employment with another employer when there may be massive gains to be had and also opportunities for advancement AND the ability to escape from an undesirable working environment?

We all have that option in our working lives so why not footballers?

In fact, I would say that for footballers, this is even more important as their professional life spans are so much less as compared to the average lad who probably has a good 40 years in a job..... Footballers, rarely have even a third of that!!! As such, they need to secure their livelihood for the future, even more so than us......

I often hear the argument that these guys are paid exorbitant sums to just play football.. but this is not new and is no differrent in other professions. What most people fail to realise is that, not ALL footballers are in the obscenely rich bracket...... It may seem that way, but this is mostly because we only hear about the players who are at the top of their game and considered to be in the upper echelons of their craft. This is true for ALL professions in the world..... the best are always paid more because everyone wants them and there are less of them out there.... The demand far outstrips the supply!! For example, the best engineers in the world earn ungodly sums... up to 20 times more than an average one....

The media doesn't report what the lads at Sunderland, Watford, Oxford, Scunthorpe, Reading etc make in a year because it is not news worthy.... As such the general perception of the public is that footballers are all rich. I don't think that this is the case.....

I can't validate this with numbers but bear with me and assume that the average footballer in Britain earns 3000 pounds a week.. If you do the math, in a 15 year career, the footballer earns approximately 2.4 million pounds before tax.... If you think about it, thats not that much different from what a professional in other areas can earn in their 40 year career....

Plus, there are the risks..... football is a dangerous sport with high risks.... you career can disappear in a second behind the flashing studs of a dangerous tackle..... And, lets face it, footballers are not that highly educated. Outside of football, most of them will struggle to scrap a decent living together..... So, theres every reason for them to make as much as they can.... WHILE they can.....

The previous ruling prior to Bosman was heavily one sided to the clubs..... they can ruin a player if they so wished...
Today, the pendulum has swung... so we complain about loyalty and remember the good ol days.... but try look at it from the other side of the mirror....

How would we feel if the boot was on OUR foot instead of theirs....

Sometimes, a man has to do what he has to do, especially when he has hungry mouths to feed.....

The other half of the Bosman ruling was the feedom to employ any player regardless of nationality... Similarly, I think that this is good..... I've worked all over the planet, wherever my skills were required in fact.... I've seen locals get pretty upset whenever I turn up as they feel that I'm depriving them of an opportunity in their own country merely by being there... Honestly, I DO understand the sentiment, but I'm there only because, what I bring to the table, they can't...... the exposure and training that is brought in by expatriates raises the competency level of the host nation working force...

Similar for football I guess...... My heart aches a little everytime I see only Carra and Stevie on the pitch for Livepool... Where are the Merseyside lads, I often ask....... But the other side of the coin is that I see us getting better every year..... If there are better out there, I say lets get them. Irrespective of nationality, color or creed. Make us even stronger.... and hopefully the local lads growing up will see this and improve and we'll unearth the next Carra in Bootle.....

My opinion at any rate.........

by **Garymac** » Sat May 20, 2006 12:38 pm

We signed Smicer for 3.5 million and if you want to know if the bosmanrule was a good idea, i have 2 words for you.....

Gary Mac

by **JC_81** » Sat May 20, 2006 12:50 pm

Imkhawx wrote:I can't validate this with numbers but bear with me and assume that the average footballer in Britain earns 3000 pounds a week.. If you do the math, in a 15 year career, the footballer earns approximately 2.4 million pounds before tax.... If you think about it, thats not that much different from what a professional in other areas can earn in their 40 year career....

I accept your arguments, with freedom of contract after you've done the job for the agreed time etc, but with football it's different. Clubs pay huge transfer fees to bring players into clubs, so for a player to be able to walk away for nothing at the end of the deal is obviously bad for the club. I can't think of too many other professions where a company has to pay such a huge fee to bring in an employee on top of their wages. The whole 'freedom of contract' situation in football stinks imo. It would only truly be fair if transfer fees were abolished completely and all players were forced to stay at a club until their contract expires, when they could then move on. At the moment contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

And I just quoted the part of your post above to highlight another point. I accept footballers have short careers, but the majority of them are overpaid for what they have to do, even players outside the premiership. It's a short career, but what is there to stop them going back to university or getting a less well-paid job when they finish playing?? That's what the rest of us have to do isn't it? So I don't buy into the whole 'poor footballers they have a short career' bullsh.it. They chose the career in the first place.

by **woof woof !** » Sat May 20, 2006 2:01 pm

john craig wrote:Clubs pay huge transfer fees to bring players into clubs, so for a player to be able to walk away for nothing at the end of the deal is obviously bad for the club.

John in response to just one of your points .

1, Nobody holds a gun to a clubs head and makes them sign a player for vasts amount of money . A club makes a deal and when the deal expires if it's considered "bad for the club" then perhaps they shouldn't have made the deal in the first place ?
You make a contract to secure the players services for an agreed period of time . Nothing more nothing less .

by **JC_81** » Sat May 20, 2006 2:36 pm

woof woof ! wrote:
john craig wrote:Clubs pay huge transfer fees to bring players into clubs, so for a player to be able to walk away for nothing at the end of the deal is obviously bad for the club.

John in response to just one of your points .

1, Nobody holds a gun to a clubs head and makes them sign a player for vasts amount of money . A club makes a deal and when the deal expires if it's considered "bad for the club" then perhaps they shouldn't have made the deal in the first place ?
You make a contract to secure the players services for an agreed period of time . Nothing more nothing less .

That's one way of looking at it Woof. But we're talking about the players here as if they're 10 year olds who have no idea that by running their contract down they are potentially putting their club in the sh.it. They know exactly what they're doing, and it's absolute greed.

Ultimately contracts mean nothing if you can be bought out of it by another club. Look at Owen for example. He could easily have signed a new contract with us, with the understanding that he would still be allowed to leave if an acceptable bid came in and he wanted to go. Then we'd have got a fair price for him. Not 8 mil plus Nunez.

Look in contrast at the example of Petrov at Celtic now. He was in the last year of his contract and could have left for free this summer, but he signed a new 4yr contract in january. He always told the club he had reservations about staying there another 4 years, but that he would sign a contract anyway so that the club do not lose him for nothing. He knew the club couldn't afford to throw away an asset like him and now if he leaves (with Bayern reportedly looking to take him for 8 million), neither Celtic nor Petrov lose out. Owen could easily have done that. But he was completely selfish, especially granted LFC is the club that made him the player he is now and groomed him from a very young age.

I think you either abolish transfer fees whereby any player moves for free at the end of a contract but at the same time cannot leave a club during a contract, or, you keep the system the way it is, but when a player leaves on a Bosman there is a process by which the club losing the player can appeal and get some sort of compensation from the other club judging by the profile/estimated value of the player.

by **73-1141222089** » Sat May 20, 2006 3:56 pm

Garymac wrote:We signed Smicer for 3.5 million and if you want to know if the bosmanrule was a good idea, i have 2 words for you.....

Gary Mac

I can probably guess what those two words might be, gary.....

But think on this for a mo....... we wanted smicer's services more badly than his old club..... as such we were willing to pay for for it.... In other words, he was in demand by us.... His old club still had a valid contract with him.... one in which they had every legal right not to let him go if they so chose..... So we had to compensate them to get his services.....

Forget the footballing reasons for a second and chew on this....

If we didn't want to pay for it, we could have waited till his contract ran out and we could have gotten him for free.... right?

We talk of loyalty all the time..... from a perverse sense how much more loyal can a player be than if he fulfils the terms of his contract....

Loyalty is one thing.... but football like other professions/business is about making money..... The club has to do the right thing by its own finances and sometimes an investment of funds in terms of player purchases will not yield financial returns or footballing ones.....

I'd consider that to be "operating expenses"...... After all, for any venture to succeed investment in infrastructure (facilities), training, personel development (coaching), personel etc needs to be done....
The club must have the capability to cut its losses and run.....

Take the case of Traore..... almost every one of us here want the club to sell him as he has not been a footballing successs...... What of his loyalty to the club? He's still here fullfilling his contract..... yet we all want Liverpool FC to break the contract and cut our losses with the boy...... If the club can do that, IMO, players should have similar recourse .......

Don't get me wrong..... what Owen did still sticks in my craw..... but at the end of it all, he didn't do anything legally wrong..... Sure he was looking out for himself and I loathe him for it in my guts...... but in the clear light of day.... He didn't do anything wrong in the eyes of the law and in the terms of his contract....

After all, we could have sold him 1 year earlier and made more money from the transfer..... the fact that we didn't meant that either we lived in hope that he'd come around and decide to stay OR that the extra money we could have gotten for him was not worth the footbaling risk of not having him around for another year......

by **account deleted by request** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:11 pm

Ultimately contracts mean nothing if you can be bought out of it by another club. Look at Owen for example. He could easily have signed a new contract with us, with the understanding that he would still be allowed to leave if an acceptable bid came in and he wanted to go. Then we'd have got a fair price for him. Not 8 mil plus Nunez.

Do you honestly believe Real Madrid would have been interested in Owen if they had to pay the going rate for him (£15 - £25 MILLION?) The only reason they bought him was because he WAS in the last year of his contract and therefore a bargain. The only clubs willing to pay silly money for Owen (Newcastle) wouldnt have interested Owen. If Liverpool had been confident of a successful season they could have gambled on making Owen see out his contract, but the thought of Owen going for nothing was just too big a gamble.

by **73-1141222089** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:15 pm

john craig wrote:
woof woof ! wrote:
john craig wrote:Clubs pay huge transfer fees to bring players into clubs, so for a player to be able to walk away for nothing at the end of the deal is obviously bad for the club.

John in response to just one of your points .

1, Nobody holds a gun to a clubs head and makes them sign a player for vasts amount of money . A club makes a deal and when the deal expires if it's considered "bad for the club" then perhaps they shouldn't have made the deal in the first place ?
You make a contract to secure the players services for an agreed period of time . Nothing more nothing less .

That's one way of looking at it Woof. But we're talking about the players here as if they're 10 year olds who have no idea that by running their contract down they are potentially putting their club in the sh.it. They know exactly what they're doing, and it's absolute greed.

Ultimately contracts mean nothing if you can be bought out of it by another club. Look at Owen for example. He could easily have signed a new contract with us, with the understanding that he would still be allowed to leave if an acceptable bid came in and he wanted to go. Then we'd have got a fair price for him. Not 8 mil plus Nunez.

Look in contrast at the example of Petrov at Celtic now. He was in the last year of his contract and could have left for free this summer, but he signed a new 4yr contract in january. He always told the club he had reservations about staying there another 4 years, but that he would sign a contract anyway so that the club do not lose him for nothing. He knew the club couldn't afford to throw away an asset like him and now if he leaves (with Bayern reportedly looking to take him for 8 million), neither Celtic nor Petrov lose out. Owen could easily have done that. But he was completely selfish, especially granted LFC is the club that made him the player he is now and groomed him from a very young age.

I think you either abolish transfer fees whereby any player moves for free at the end of a contract but at the same time cannot leave a club during a contract, or, you keep the system the way it is, but when a player leaves on a Bosman there is a process by which the club losing the player can appeal and get some sort of compensation from the other club judging by the profile/estimated value of the player.

I can see where you're coming from with this John..... and your sense of loyalty does you credit.....

But signing on for another 4 years just so the club can make decent money from you really stretches it for me..... Why would a player want to do that when he can get much more from his new employers if they didn't have to pay his transfer fees.....

Petrov's gesture was a fine one but he may be one of the few to look at the world through rose tinted glasss..... Not many people would do that...

As I said in the post above, once it became clear that Owen didn't want to extend, we should have sold him.... if and only if it was a money issue.

What gets my goat is that, very often players string clubs along and not make their intentions clear until the last minute.... to me that is unethical......

However, if you've been reading the stuff being written on Owen here, you'd really wonder if theres a case of double standards....

We are vilifying the man for what he did to us but many here were advocating that he should have screwe-d Real Madrid over by holding them to ransom and saying that he only wants to come back to us...... for me that is just not on....

by **JC_81** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:21 pm

s@int wrote:
Ultimately contracts mean nothing if you can be bought out of it by another club. Look at Owen for example. He could easily have signed a new contract with us, with the understanding that he would still be allowed to leave if an acceptable bid came in and he wanted to go. Then we'd have got a fair price for him. Not 8 mil plus Nunez.

Do you honestly believe Real Madrid would have been interested in Owen if they had to pay the going rate for him (£15 - £25 MILLION?) The only reason they bought him was because he WAS in the last year of his contract and therefore a bargain. The only clubs willing to pay silly money for Owen (Newcastle) wouldnt have interested Owen. If Liverpool had been confident of a successful season they could have gambled on making Owen see out his contract, but the thought of Owen going for nothing was just too big a gamble.

Of course Owen knew that he was more likely to get the move he wanted if his fee was reduced. But that's part of my point, he was selfish.

But to say clubs still wouldn't have been interested in him at 15mil plus if he'd signed a new deal is horsesh.it mate. His reputation was then and still is easily good enough to attract a bid of that size from a top team - and I don't mean rubbish like Newcastle.

Madrid weren't 'only' interested in him because he was a bargain, they had made several approaches before that. When has money ever been an object for Madrid? When have they ever had to look for bargains? Whether they paid 20mil or 8 mil for Owen it wouldn't have mattered to them, they wanted another galactico and they got him, it just so happened they got him on the cheap.

by **JC_81** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:29 pm

Imkhawx wrote:I can see where you're coming from with this John..... and your sense of loyalty does you credit.....

But signing on for another 4 years just so the club can make decent money from you really stretches it for me..... Why would a player want to do that when he can get much more from his new employers if they didn't have to pay his transfer fees.....

Petrov's gesture was a fine one but he may be one of the few to look at the world through rose tinted glasss..... Not many people would do that...

As I said in the post above, once it became clear that Owen didn't want to extend, we should have sold him.... if and only if it was a money issue.

What gets my goat is that, very often players string clubs along and not make their intentions clear until the last minute.... to me that is unethical......

However, if you've been reading the stuff being written on Owen here, you'd really wonder if theres a case of double standards....

We are vilifying the man for what he did to us but many here were advocating that he should have screwe-d Real Madrid over by holding them to ransom and saying that he only wants to come back to us...... for me that is just not on....

Fair points.

I accept that Petrov is one of the few players who would make such a gesture to his current club, even moreso the fact he is a Bulgarian and Celtic is not his hometown club. But you would expect that it would be someone like Owen who has grown up with his hometown club who would be more inclined to do such a thing. Owen does fall into the category of those players who pull the wool over the club's eyes only to make a late decision on their future - imo with only a year to run on the contract is a late decision because the player's value has considerably depreciated.

Good point about the whole double standards in those of us urging Owen to hold out on Madrid and only moving to LFC. Never looked at it that way. But even so, I imagine LFC's offer to Madrid was easily over 10 million, therefore Madrid were still making money on him.

by **account deleted by request** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:29 pm

a very good post there Imkhawx. People seem to forget that Liverpool (Houllier/Parry?) allowed Owen to run his contract down after having said after McManaman that they would never let it happen again. I dont believe Rafa would have allowed this situation to have developed. A firm sign or be sold the year before would have solved all the problems.

by **73-1141222089** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:31 pm

john craig wrote:
Imkhawx wrote:I can't validate this with numbers but bear with me and assume that the average footballer in Britain earns 3000 pounds a week.. If you do the math, in a 15 year career, the footballer earns approximately 2.4 million pounds before tax.... If you think about it, thats not that much different from what a professional in other areas can earn in their 40 year career....

I accept your arguments, with freedom of contract after you've done the job for the agreed time etc, but with football it's different. Clubs pay huge transfer fees to bring players into clubs, so for a player to be able to walk away for nothing at the end of the deal is obviously bad for the club. I can't think of too many other professions where a company has to pay such a huge fee to bring in an employee on top of their wages. The whole 'freedom of contract' situation in football stinks imo. It would only truly be fair if transfer fees were abolished completely and all players were forced to stay at a club until their contract expires, when they could then move on. At the moment contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

And I just quoted the part of your post above to highlight another point. I accept footballers have short careers, but the majority of them are overpaid for what they have to do, even players outside the premiership. It's a short career, but what is there to stop them going back to university or getting a less well-paid job when they finish playing?? That's what the rest of us have to do isn't it? So I don't buy into the whole 'poor footballers they have a short career' bullsh.it. They chose the career in the first place.

On the seond point you raised, I beg to differ....

Professional sportsmen have to sacrifice a great deal in order to make their dreams come true..... In many cases, this includes their education...

They know that they may only ever get 1 shot to make their choice a success and most will pull out all the stops and make all the sacrifices that they feel is necessary....

I've read many interviews and comments from footballers on what they would have done with their lives if football was suddenly taken away form them...... Many a time, the responses they give is that they'd probably be a barman, tradesmen etc.....

Among them were greats like Best, Pele etc etc....

I think that it's best to agree to disagree on this one...

by **JC_81** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:41 pm

Imkhawx wrote:
john craig wrote:
Imkhawx wrote:I can't validate this with numbers but bear with me and assume that the average footballer in Britain earns 3000 pounds a week.. If you do the math, in a 15 year career, the footballer earns approximately 2.4 million pounds before tax.... If you think about it, thats not that much different from what a professional in other areas can earn in their 40 year career....

I accept your arguments, with freedom of contract after you've done the job for the agreed time etc, but with football it's different. Clubs pay huge transfer fees to bring players into clubs, so for a player to be able to walk away for nothing at the end of the deal is obviously bad for the club. I can't think of too many other professions where a company has to pay such a huge fee to bring in an employee on top of their wages. The whole 'freedom of contract' situation in football stinks imo. It would only truly be fair if transfer fees were abolished completely and all players were forced to stay at a club until their contract expires, when they could then move on. At the moment contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

And I just quoted the part of your post above to highlight another point. I accept footballers have short careers, but the majority of them are overpaid for what they have to do, even players outside the premiership. It's a short career, but what is there to stop them going back to university or getting a less well-paid job when they finish playing?? That's what the rest of us have to do isn't it? So I don't buy into the whole 'poor footballers they have a short career' bullsh.it. They chose the career in the first place.

On the seond point you raised, I beg to differ....

Professional sportsmen have to sacrifice a great deal in order to make their dreams come true..... In many cases, this includes their education...

They know that they may only ever get 1 shot to make their choice a success and most will pull out all the stops and make all the sacrifices that they feel is necessary....

I've read many interviews and comments from footballers on what they would have done with their lives if football was suddenly taken away form them...... Many a time, the responses they give is that they'd probably be a barman, tradesmen etc.....

Among them were greats like Best, Pele etc etc....

I think that it's best to agree to disagree on this one...

Fair enough mate, we'll agree to disagree on that one.

The only thing I will say on that though, is that what's wrong with being a barman or a tradesman?

Footballers still get paid way too much in general, despite what sacrifices they've made to get there. I just don't think you can defend that by saying 'they deserve it because it's a short career'. It's not as if they can't fulfill some other role in society when they finish playing other than play golf.

Liverpool FC Forum

Bosman 10 years after - Good or bad for football/liverpool fc

Who is online