The The FIFA players status Committee has on the Friday the 26.9 at the request of the Association represented by lawyer Wieschemann Trabzonspor to the Senegalese goalkeeper Tony Mario Sylva issued a provisional international certificate of transfer and thus the opinion in the casethe player’s Andrew Webster, confirmed in January by the CAS as”Webster” was decided. Because of this judgment, the collapse of the transfer revenue-based financing system of football was feared at the beginning of the year. Now there’s a second case, which is equally important, because it goes beyond the decision in the case of Webster. The parties argued only over the compensation after a transfer.
After the first excitement consoled the clubs with the understanding that you alone “could force still a transfer agreement and thus a transfer fee by refusal to release”. But now, Trabzonspor obtained a permission for his new players despite existing disputes with the old Club before the FIFA. Only the path for change-willing player is final after the protection period free.
You see the echo in the media on the page Media or read below.
Tony Sylva was goalkeeper of the French first division club LOSC Lille and his normally until 2009 contract in May 2008 on one side under cover hadArt. 17 par. 1 of the FIFA regulations on the transfer of players ends. His protection time of two years since the last contract extension expired at this time. A short time later, he signed a new Contract with the Turkish first division side Trabzonspor, represented by lawyer Wieschemann.
On the contract until the press become aware, Lille Trabzonspor pointed out that the player was still a valid contract until 2009 and not freely given. While the Club argued that art. 17 par. 1 of the FIFA status in France by the National Union of the own rules and regulations be recorded and therefore inapplicable. One after the FIFA statutes and the decision of the CAS calculated the Club refused compensation. Negotiations for a transfer to both clubs fairly tried, were inconclusive, so the FIFA on the Claim of Trabzonspor had to decide first on the provisional release and then over the amount of compensation. The first decision was made Friday with the Grant of share certificate, the second about the amount of compensation can be expected until the end of October.
After the famous”Bosman”decision of the European Court of Justice, with which until then in professional football after the end of a contract to be inadmissible declared usual transfer payments, were the Club come over, to bind the players to transfer it usually before the last contract year against compensation in the long term contract.
The European Commission considers that he was so Principle of freedom to provide services under article 39 of the EC Contract undermine in professional football, so that FIFA is already in March 2001 with the Commission on a tiered system to the Maintenance of contractual stability agreed and the member associations committed to apply the rules in the National Association. Since then remains afterArticle 17 paragraph 1 of the relevant transfer Statute of the breach of contract a player who was younger than 28 at the conclusion of the last contract after a“Protection period” of three years, a player older than 28 years old, who was at the relevant time after a protection period of two years, no sporting sanctions – in particular game lock – where the games but a Club Compensation owes.
The provision remained largely ignored until Andrew Webster moved in this way in May 2006 from heart of Midlothian to Wigan Kong romantic. The international court of arbitration for sport CAS established the only contested between the parties unexpectedly low compensation in January 2008. The old Club had spent training costs as damages both in vain, required transfer fee but lost primarily amounting to total approx. 5.3 million GBP. While FIFA had said to have a total of 625,000 GBP, the judgment of the CAS with only 150,000 GBP was still far. According to the Court of sports justice there must be the provision a significant difference due to the history between a breach of contract within and outside the protection time. A high claim for compensation outside the protection period would be a renewed illegal hurdle. The player owes the Club as compensation only the amount of money he could ask if the Club would prematurely terminate the contract. This is no more than the Content to the agreed end of the contract, usually very clearly under a transfer fee is located.
In fact, this means: the player pays his remaining salary to the Club and is gone.
German clubs and authors in journals were of the opinion, German labour law would be of such a decision what is wrong, because the parties away and make a right choice according to the work contract of the DFL Zulässig erweise by German labour law rightly FIFA after the first excitement initially opposed -.
Greater hopes but rested on the fact that according to the regulations of FIFA (annex 3 to the FIFA Statute, art. 2 ZIF. 4) usually a transfer certificate is not granted may be, if the issuing association stating that the contract was not waivered andlabour disputes exist. Thus, it was believed in fact to be able to prevent a transfer based on articles 17 to reach negotiated to a transfer agreement with the new Club. With this question the Court had must not deal namely case in the Webster, whose permission was not disputed.
In the past, there were already in other situations provisional approvals by the FIFA, but not on the basis of article 17. This question is now settled with the granting of provisional eligibility to play for Tony Mario Sylva. FIFA is here on the position that a provisional release to give is usually players with a new employment contract, while the review of the legality of the contract, the amount of compensation and a possible sporting sanction (blocking) alone is left to the further proceedings.
In the case of article 17, FIFA have just to check, whether the protection time expired and received the termination and then grant the transfer Bill even against the wishes of the issuing association. Only thus is the balance between the sanctity of contracts and freedom of movement.
The completeness is to point out that these principles directly only on international transfers. also German players abroad, are applicable because a transfer only nationally, not FIFA for issuing the permission, but League Association/DFL is responsible. This is – different than the FIFA does not approve the transfer. While it refers that according to the principles of a famous decision of the Federal Labor Court but on a legal basis, (BAG, Kien ACE decision) is immoral in 1998 and thus null and void. It is however assumed that this question will be decided soon.
However, must be rejected an all too ready to risk dealing with the possibilities of article 17 without detailed examination of the legal situation. Often the desire is as quickly as possible at a different Club to be able to play in the foreground, what can safely be placed through a provisional eligibility to play. That may obscure but not, that in the event of a faulty forecast might only in the main proceedings in addition to high compensation, also ban for the player and sanctions for the host Club threaten with a time delay.
It would be desirable so first and foremost, that everyone involved, including the clubs, which make legal reality and turn off your behavior, as also your contracts to.