In the MIRROR, Jörg Kramer reported in issue 49/2008 from December 1, 2008 on the development of the FIFA transfer law, the fall of Webster and the case of Sylva and the consequences that can have the underlying problem for the current transfer action in the Bundesliga, in particular for Lukas Podolski:An undeservedly clause and a forgotten judgment threatens to shake up the transfer market. Can Lukas Podolski leave just like FC Bayern in the summer?At the beginning of last week the internationals Lukas Podolski, 23, made an attempt might last. Moderately appreciated by coach Jürgen Klinsmann and with his club Bayern Munich usually only replacement, made for the first time publicly his desire the striker for change: “in the winter”, so in the next transfer window in January, he wanted to leave the Club.The announcement led to the hoped-for dialogue of the FC Bayern, not but the desired result. Manager ULI Hoeneß made it clear Kon Schramm the Podolski consultant: Munich to find no suitable replacement, and then it looks currently, there is no release from the contract running until 2010.It could happen that the Bavarians still regret their stubbornness. Because the more recent case-law on transfer regulations in world football offers the possibility that Podolski leaves in the summer even against the wishes of the Club Munich even against a transfer compensation far below market value. It is a long considered clause. The debate occurs only among legal scholars, but it is likely to shake up the transfer market.In 2001 namely the World Federation FIFA has recorded the paragraphs, article 17, in its transfer Statute, after the Commission had complained. After the Bosman ruling, which prohibited transfers for players out of contract, the clubs were passed around the world, to complete almost only have long-term contracts. In it, Commissioners saw an impairment of freedom of movement and freedom of occupation.Article 17 should represent a compromise between free movement and the principle of the sanctity of contracts. Therefore players may terminate, how long it runs, unilaterally under a fixed-term contract the so-called protection time – for a change in foreign countries after three years -, without risking a lock. Professionals who are at least 28 years old upon completion of the contract, may be after two years.The article never played a role until the fall of the Scots Andrew Webster. He announced in 2006, citing this rule prematurely at heart of Midlothian and moved to Wigan Athletic in England. The hearts were also relying on article 17, on a compensation. They demanded five million pounds (then $7.4 million), about Webster’s market value. FIFA set the compensation to only 625 000 pounds, at the end of the international sports court decided: there were only 160 000 to pay.Thus, it was clear: who loses his players ahead of time by using new termination article, gets a vanishingly low transfer money. The rule is: if necessary, there is compensation only in the amount of pending until the end-of-contract salary of of player, plus that part of the purchase price, which still has not amortised. EUR 3 million for salary plus additional 2.5 for not yet written-down transfer payments would be for Podolski. Far less so than the EUR 10 million, which has paid Bayern for Podolski.Nobody knows what exactly that means for the balance sheets of the clubs. Is the player be set with their value, but is now as unclear as ever.First of all, the German Football League (DFL) was all clear. National law was later to write a run-time-sensitive contracts are not prematurely terminated in Germany; Also the international release might be denied pending clarification by the courts a player who quit, – so, a transfer would in fact prevented. Because the interested Club wants the players finally immediately.Then, the case of the Senegalese came Tony Sylva in this year. The goalkeeper announced pursuant to article 17 in advance at Lille OSC in France, later the Turkish Club Trabzonspor signed him. Lille refused to release, Sylva, however, complained to FIFA. And the FIFA Committee for the status of players forced implemented the change.Sylva Bochum Prosecutor Christof Wieschemann had found that after FIFA transfer regulations a player not can be forced to adhere to the contract of employment. And he discovered in the jungle of the statutes and comments even more: that the disputed provisions for termination not only with changes in other European countries could apply, but also transfers within Germany.The DFL has subjugated the statutes of FIFA in their sample employment contracts, thus, Wieschemann, article 17, is part of the national labour law. And if the DFL give a game permit for the new Club in accordance with their license regulations relating to the transfer, as long as no agreement or court decision lies above, thus she violate principles of a judgment of the Federal Labour Court. The nearly forgotten case of ice hockey player Torsten Kamal Abu the judges had decided in 1996 that the former rule of transfer with the basic law was not compatible.There are soccer clubs, which have already reacted to the termination article 17. So he has written into equal an amount of compensation for a premature resolution VfB Stuttgart in the contract with striker Mario Gomez. The speech is significantly more EUR 30 million, so as the residual, which foresees the FIFA.Podolskis contract in Munich already next summer 2010, the protection period ends. He could then switch after article 17 against a compensation of only EUR 5.5 million abroad, or perhaps to Cologne.Podolskis agent Schramm knows the interpretation of the jurists. Nevertheless, he would currently discouraged by such termination. He wants to not be branded as the one who brings the entire building to collapse.

Jörg Kramer

For the full article go to

or as a PDF of print edition here

Leave a Reply