Forum

xml	No replies possible in the archive

Author: Malko
Date: 18-08-2007, 12:53

All our discussions in other topics make me pose this question. How great the times were, when we saw in European Cupfinals teams like

Steaua Bukarest
FC Bruges
Anderlecht
SEC Bastia
Magdebourg
etc etc.................

Today, by "Bosman", there are 5 or 6 teams which can buy the best players in the world, and of course, will always be in semifinals of European Cups
Name : Chelsea, Milan, Barcelona, manchester, Liverpool,Milan, Real, Juventus (soon again)....

The last "outsiders" we have seen in CL_finals were probably Monaco, Leverkusen,Porto, Bayern Munich, a little earlier Dortmund, Marseille......

I think the list i gave above will fill the CL-Finals in the next 10 years, if nothing changes, if "Bosman" is still accurate......

In Luxembourg, we have to have 8 luxembourgish players among the 14 on the sheet for a match. I think this should be european, and we will have more interesting Championsleague again.......

Author: badgerboy
Date: 18-08-2007, 13:11

"In Luxembourg, we have to have 8 luxembourgish players among the 14 on the sheet for a match. I think this should be european, and we will have more interesting Championsleague again......."

Malko - how is that possible? FIFA seem to be trying desperately to get an agreement with the EU that would allow national associations to impose some kind of "nationality rule" - something like 6+5. But they can't do it yet.

But I'm also sure I read on here (or maybe somewhere else) that one team in Luxembourg has only Portuguese players?

I didn't find that team but for example in 2005-06 CS Petange had just four players in their entire squad that were Luxembourgeois (sorry not sure if I spelt that right). Of course many of the others may have had dual-nationality but I'm not sure how difficult that is - especially for other EU players?

I do sort of agree with you though. The idea is a good one if it can be made within the law - or the law can be changed. Certainly a nationality "quota" for the first team squads of each team - if not the actual players that can start the game.

Author: Malko
Date: 18-08-2007, 13:27

there is one response : BOSMAn concerns European Right of working.....and in Luxembourg, all players are amateurs (have another job). So Luxembourg doen't count for Bosman.
.....
Now, becuase of the top-temas in luxembourg (F91 Dudelange) had no players which could play ijn Luxembourg National team, the FLF made this rule : at least 8 selectionnable players in each team. They CAN be portuguese, cause there is an exception from the rule : A player which has his first football-licence in a luxembourgish team can be counted as part of the 8........
I hope this answers your questions.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: Overgame Date: 18-08-2007, 13:58	Bosman :p Don't blame the guy, he was cheated by a club, and he tried to get some reparations.

Author: Dragonite
Date: 18-08-2007, 14:02

Malko,

Football is still mostly about talent.

Although most of you guys in here like the idea of “money”=>”success” and “no money”=>”failure”, that’s not how things work.

There are many examples in domestic leagues or European football of richer teams failing year after year. For instance, Inter has been a rich team for the last 4 decades, yet, they can’t win the Champions Cup/League since the 60’s, while many teams with less resources have already won it ever since (some even more than once).

So, if you have a good coach and a good group of players you can win, it’s not impossible!

If other teams can pay higher wages but they aren’t organized and don’t have team spirit and simply waste their money in “fake players”, a good team (although poorer) will defeat them.

Having said that above, I like the idea of introducing foreigners limits- For instance, no more than 5 or 6 foreigners per squad. If that happened, even if the “supposed” big teams signed the best foreigners, among themselves they could only have 5 or 6 X the number of “supposed” big teams, still leaving a lot of good players for other teams to have (instead of what happens today where a team like Arsenal can have 24 foreigners).

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: Maluyaca Date: 18-08-2007, 14:03	No way it's not Bosman who kils football. Money kills football.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: blue_shark Date: 18-08-2007, 14:09	the reason why the the same teams appear in the later stages is not the bosman rule or the number of foreign players a team can use. it's the format of CL. steaua and zvezda played their finals when only a team from each country was allowed to play CL.

Author: antonio62tr
Date: 18-08-2007, 14:20

We have stupid 6+1(6 forigner can be at first 11 and one more at subsitute-also European players are foreigners here) rule in Turkey and it doesnot help anyone including smaller clubs against big ones...
Also for your question i cannot see lots of Romanian or Belgian top players around to make their teams(Steau,Anderlecht or brugge)Champion at Europe..Thats the sirculation in history...Nowadays we have Sevilla,Lyon and CSKA...

Author: Malko
Date: 18-08-2007, 14:51

Overgame, I do not blame the guy but the rule, therefore i make "Bosman" within brackets.

Dragonite, yes, ...talents. But with much money, it's easyer to get those talents......

Antonio, if the big temas buy the best froreign players, that also means that their local championship is weakend by this...

Another fact is the different ways, they can be paid. For 100 Euro to pay to a player, in England a club has to spend 150, in France 350........so.....

Author: Dragonite
Date: 18-08-2007, 14:52

Well, Antonio,

Teams like Arsenal, Liverpool, Inter, Barcelona… are “strong” compared to other European teams like Steaua, Rosenborg, Dinamo Zagreb, Sparta Prague… because they have lots of foreigners. If they were forced to play with some English players (in Arsenal case), Italian players (in Inter case) or Spanish players (in Barcelona case) “in theory” they would become weaker… and because they couldn’t have all the good players of Romania, Norway, Croatia, Czech Republic… those teams would keep some of theirs good players and become stronger.

If UEFA was concerned with developing football everywhere, they should force teams to use local players. So, if those teams wanted to keep being great, they would have to develop talented players, instead of snatching them from poorer teams.

Author: ikoon
Date: 18-08-2007, 15:12

Not Bosman is the problem, but the international law concerning human rights. If it weren't for him, it would have been somebodyelse.

In order to change the situation, the societies with sportive profile, must be reglementated by different laws, to international level; the contract between a player and a club, shouldn't be a work contract, but some kind of colaboration contract, specified by a different law.

If this contract will remain a work contract, there is noting UEFA or some other organisation can do, to restrict the liberty of a club to employ how many foreigner players they wish.

There are some major changes that have to be done and if succesfull they will influence not only football but all other sports. Not very soon i'm afraid, as long as the big clubs are pulling the strings behind anything that is happening in european football and they have no interes to see this one succed.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 18-08-2007, 15:17	Did Lincoln kill the cotton industry in the south of the USA?

Author: ignjat63
Date: 18-08-2007, 15:23

If Bosman is all about the right to work then it is wrong and that way of looking at it should be changed. Or we stop treating sport as games but only as jobs. I strongly disagree with that. Sport is if anything a game and not all the work laws should be aplied to it.

Otherwise, the top world football players should not be payed more than 100,000 euros a year. The job of running up and down and around the green field manipulating a round object should not be worth more than that.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: Malko Date: 18-08-2007, 15:30	bert ..and others. I said "Bosman", not Bosman :-)

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: Dragonite Date: 18-08-2007, 15:42	Someone please explain me this. UEFA and FIFA are based in Switzerland, a non-EU member. So, why should UEFA competitions use the Bosman rule, if UEFA is based in a country outside EU?

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 18-08-2007, 15:42	Malko, I know. I just try to put some attention to the fact that it's not good that a club can "own" players. Like slaves. So they can ask transfer money not based on a contract signed by the player. I'm no lawyer, but as far as I know "Bosman" changed this. So, that's good. Possible side-effects should be eliminated with new rules.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: Malko Date: 18-08-2007, 16:12	Dragonite...not UEFA uses it....but the local EU-states....... Teams in an EU-Country wouldn't buy all those foreigners if they couldn't let them play in the home championship...........

Author: Arny
Date: 19-08-2007, 14:12

I tottaly agree with ignjat. The truth is that the biggest problem in football nowadays is the exagerated salaries that some players receive(exagerated is little said). I honestly cannot believe how some players can earn 10mil euros/year just for playing football. This is not justified. There are plenty of young talents outthere who haven't been discovered or better players in inferior leagues who earn 1% of what the "superstars"(who mostly are overrated) do and that is if they are lucky.

I believe that for lets say the best proffesional football player(cuz certainly there are players better than Kaka,Ronaldinho etc. who haven't got a chance to show off what they can) the salary should not be more than 1mil euros.

And the difference shouldn't be that huge. For example players like those of Steaua Bucharest who earn about 200k on average(but they receive alot more from bonuses, just this year if they pass BATE they receive 150k beside their salary,but lets just stick to the basic payment) should keep their salary and if they move to a bigger club that salary should be double or tripled but not more because there is a difference between the top players and players like that but it should directly proportional to the value of the player. e.g Dica earns around 200k while Mutu around 2mil so Mutu is 10 times better than Dica? cmon...

Big wages doesn't mean that those players are better than most. For a good example look at Turkey where the top3 pay wages like western countries in 7 figures numbers but they don't have results at all.

If the wage proportion should be like i mentioned them than more players with stick with their clubs and will not leave them.

Author: eldaec
Date: 19-08-2007, 14:59
Edited by: eldaec
at: 19-08-2007, 15:05

No.

Ok, that's settled, thread over I guess.

EDIT: What? You want more?

Why should players from european countries with lower standard leagues not have access to jobs in other European countries?

The prime driver for nationality rules is that big countries are worried that if smaller nation's players get experience playing against better opposition, they will compete more at international level, and likely will eventually head home and improve the standard of organisation and coaching in their own country. Much like what happens in every other industry.

This is about protectionism, not about football.

Author: ikoon
Date: 19-08-2007, 15:53

Why should players from european countries with lower standard leagues not have access to jobs in other European countries?

Is not that they shouldn't have access to better jobs. It is about how this access should be.

I think that no player under the age of 26 years should be allow to leave. Think about a work contract with a clause that oblige the employee to work for a company a specified period before he is allowed to leave. In our specific case to not recive legitimation to other FA, until the age of 26. Why this is normal? Because the company/country assure his training and they should be covered.

How you put the problem is the same like why a italian citizen shouldn't be allowed to enrol in Burkina Faso's army?

Regarding the club, the sportive society, they should be limited to at least 50% players of the same nationality like what the society have. I think is normal, if they want more foreigners they should invest somwhere else, to register a different nationality.

Those messures are necesarely if you want to develop the football and not to destroy it. And they will stimulate the clubs to invest more in their own academy of youth talents. You cannot build international football brands on the bones of other contries.

This is about protectionism, not about football.

It is about both. The football is the one who makes money and to keep making money and much more, entertaiment, it must be protected.

You cannot build your principles and ideas on a bluff, the fact that those "low ranked leagues" will always produce juice for the "high ranked league" (you can easily replace "ranked" with "rich"). The low ranked league will produce players for how long football will be requierd by fans, if the fans loose interes the investment will change their focus in other domains.

If leting football free will bring its destruction, then i think that is necesarely to intervine and conditionate it in order to change its fate, without any of the "player rights" crap. If we do this we do it for the next hundrred generations of players to have a future, whatever they are born.

Author: Ricardo
Date: 19-08-2007, 21:28

It's the money ofcourse, that killed the competition. Togehter with the changed rules due to "Bosman".
Problem is the 'winner takes it all' principle. Only the best competition(winner) gets the money. This is currently the English. Not just because of the 'local' Englis market, but all over the world people pay tosee the English league. So they get more money, buying best players, keep being the best this way etc. etc.
"Bosman" only changed the reward that was given for a team that had a player until then. Results are long during contracts for good players that get broken anyway...
Problem also is the Europification of the players. It is much more normal to play abroad. A 20 year old would not have thought about playing abroad 25 years ago, now he is sueing his current team if he can not leave the country. Especially when he can get millions of salary for sitting on the bench..

Author: Dragonite
Date: 19-08-2007, 21:59

Ikoon,

No player under 26 should be allowed to leave?? What is this, Saudi Arabia?? Do you want to rebuild the Berlin wall??

And who would want players over 26, with the best part of theirs careers already gone??!!

The wise thing to do was to introduce foreigners’ limits… for instance, 5 per team. Even if all the Premier League teams had 5 Brazilians each, they would be just 100. The same for all the other countries, Spain, France, Germany, Italy… so even if all those teams had 5 Brazilian players each, they would be just 500… and there would still be lots of good Brazilians for other teams to get!!

And since teams could only have 5 foreigners, in order to remain top teams, they would have to develop national players, and as a consequence the national team level would also improve.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: levski.bg Date: 19-08-2007, 22:24	Most of euro clubs is happy with that system. If somehow, they are not happy..they will change the system (if we live in world with democracy). If euro clubs follow american leagues examples (NBA, NHL....wages limited idea for ex.) that can equal some power, but I really doubt that could happen in the near future.

Author: ikoon
Date: 19-08-2007, 23:45

No player under 26 should be allowed to leave?? What is this, Saudi Arabia?? Do you want to rebuild the Berlin wall??

No i want to build the performance wall. At least until 24 years a player should be kept in the football he was raised by. Is a very fair relation of colaboration. The FA sould legitimate any proffessional player under this condition.

We don't raise players to be used like fuel by the richer clubs, whitout obtaining nothing regarding football in return. Is better for the big clubs to raise their own players to invest more in their own young talents too.

The player will have good years ahead, to make an international career, but why do you think that the country that raised it shouldn't win something because of the effort and training. And don't say that they obtain money, because the fans don't obtain money and with those little money, excelent players don't came in low ranked championships, and the only option is to raise again to scout again, and for what?

We are not scouters for the big clubs and we want good and performat football too.

Author: Overgame
Date: 20-08-2007, 00:01

You should be forced to work for the school where you've studied.

Wait, that's close of slavery .. Bah, who cares ?

Frankly, do you realize what you're saying ? If a player had problems with a new trainer, his career is terminated. If some player want to leave the country for some reasons, he must stop his career.

I remeber something about the right of work in the human rights. But you don't seem to remember.

Author: levski.bg
Date: 20-08-2007, 00:32
Edited by: levski.bg
at: 20-08-2007, 00:32

The very same idea was implement in Bulgaria......in the late communist years

. "Perestroika" time, made transfers from eastern to western clubs posible, but you had to be over 26 y old. I dont remember some club achivement from that period, excluding one 1/2 final from CSKA, but there was some other reasons perhaps (less countries/format/army regulation..etc). I read about FIFA regulation, who charge every club with youth transfer for at least 300K $ in benefit to club-creator.

Author: ikoon
Date: 20-08-2007, 00:39

Wait, that's close of slavery .. Bah, who cares ?

That's your best one, yet.

Why? No one force anyone to choose a career. But if he chooses he should play by some specific rules, that benefit both to the player and to the football level from the country that raise and train him.

The football players won a lot of money in comparation with the average salary, is only fair to give something in return, some quality football for his own country. What is a obligation to play a 5 years period of seniorship for a club from your country so hard too digest?

Don't we want to protect the football in more countries from disapearing or underperforming? That's one contition to it. Then tell me why should i invest important money in a player from juniorship to seniorship and give him official matches to first team, when he finaly became a base player another foreigne club came and offer me probably few hundred thousands euro more or the same sum i spent with his training?

You wanted the answer why the many clubs/countries don't invest in youngs very much. That's way. The current laws that give to football players the same rights like any other employees make it unprofitable, neither finaciar or sportive.

The solution some people propose to restrict the rights of teams to have or use more than few foreigner players, is good too, but don't offer full protection to a country or stop rich clubs buying the best footbaliers of each generation / country at a young age, and is also based on few derogations from the normal rights of sportive associations of free employment.

I think that to be efficient, both conditions should be used simutaneous and yes it require some international law changes,but all for good of football.

Author: Overgame
Date: 20-08-2007, 04:33

Well, you don't seem to understand.

Noone should be forced to work somewhere or nothing. That's relative to the humand rights. Please read them.

Again, that rule is illegall (UE law), against the Human Rights and illogical. Do you know why Bosman has gone to a civil court ? Just because his club, FC Liege, refused to sell himm when his contract was finished and refused to give him a new contract.

Imagine this : the 'owner' of a 24 years old player refuses to sell him, and refuses to give him a new contract. And if you create a specific rule to avoid that, the club could simply ask 20000M € to sell him and give him a 10 years contract, with a minimum salaray, with a 12345M € close to break it.

His career could be over before the start.

Leaglly, there is a problem. About the Human Rights, there is a problem. In my logic, there is a problem.

Author: badgerboy
Date: 21-08-2007, 11:33

"No one force anyone to choose a career. But if he chooses he should play by some specific rules, that benefit both to the player and to the football level from the country that raise and train him".

But from what age do you consider a club/country starts to be seriously responsible for the "development" of a player.

I guess many big teams have very young kids playing at some age level or another. If a club takes a kid on into their U9 team does that mean he's then tied to that country until he's 26?

Should Lionel Messi have not been allowed to move to Spain at age 13? Or should he now be simply classed as "Spanish" & barred from any big money moves to Italy or England until he is 26?

Bear in mind that a large proportion of the players that represent their countries at U17 level probably never make it as full-time p;rofessionals so when Arsenal take on some 16-year-old kid from anywhere in the world it's hardly "risk free" with the club where he played his "schoolboy football" having done all the hard work.

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 21-08-2007, 13:02

The Bosman act significantly accelerated the globalization process in football. And who benefit from globalization? the most powerful of course.

So in one way, yes, the Bosman Act significantly increased differences between the big names and the other clubs.
This said, Barcelona or Milan were already bigger, richer and more prestigious than anaybody before the Bosman Act. In other terms, the Bosman Act should not take the blame for all your frustrations.

As a European, I was glad to be able to work in other EU countries without needing any specific permit. I presume that most of us enjoy having such an opportunity. Why would footballers be denied that right?

Author: ikoon
Date: 21-08-2007, 16:18

@Lyonnais,

Are you speaking from the player perspective or from the fan perspective? I see that you like a fan, like to put yourself in a player postion, and not in a fan position. I think however that in this case, the fans position should be more relevant, because of the fans football exist, the player choose this career and earn so much money and fame in football.

As a European, I was glad to be able to work in other EU countries without needing any specific permit. I presume that most of us enjoy having such an opportunity. Why would footballers be denied that right?

Not denied, but conditionated. The other work activities are not mass phenomenums, so you working here or there you are doing it for you and your company not for milions of fans. I think that a compromise between fans's wishes and player rights is the best in this context.

You speak about human rights, but how many humans from the six bilion have the right to came and work in the UN, like any other UN members? In this context they aren't humans or what? But the UN make his own law that conflict iself in several points with International Declaration of Human Rights, to defend the interes of its citizens. I'm just saying that the countries should do the same. Before the rights of footballers came first the national interes, in this case of the fans who should be protected by protecting football.

Again we should do this, by changing the juridic nature of the footballers contracts from work contract, in let's say COLABORATION contracts, because this is what they are: the player recive training and a lot of money and he should give in return football for a minumum determinated period of time.

Next you will say that the FAs have no right to recall the players for national team duty and football, because the other public institutions don't have the same right with the people/citizens that work outside in different domains.

Sorry but the footballers not only that they win much more money than the average salary, and they are intensly and costly train and rewarded from a young age, but this came with a specific national duty too, at least this is my opinion.

Like i said, otherwise why do you support and suggest the investition in youth in small countries? Do you think that we have some kind of obligation to train and raise players for richer leagues? Will the national teams improve? Probably yes, but the national teams are assigned to the public domains, the private investitions aren't. More and more fans are hundreds more times interested of what happen with the clubs that what happen with the national teams and i strongly belive that we should take steps to protect the internal leagues. All the strong national teams are based on strong domestic league not on the outside players.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 21-08-2007, 19:19	Living in the world of ikoon I would prefer to keep my football skills secret. Sounds scary: "before rights of footballers comes first the national interest".

Author: badgerboy
Date: 21-08-2007, 19:28

So ikoon if it was ever remotely possible to ignore the human rights of footballers in the way you suggest why stop there?

What is the point of clubs from places like Bacau, Craiova, Petrosani, Timisoara, Pitesti, Galati etc. etc. having youth teams & investing any money in youth development if all their best players can simply up sticks & move to Bucharest because the clubs there have more money?

Stop it! They must remain in not just the country but the city where they have their first club - as a 12 year old or whatever... That stops the same boring old clubs dominating their domestic leagues & football everywhere gets much more interesting. What do you think?

Author: Lyonnais
Date: 21-08-2007, 19:32

Fan's opinions are irrelevant here. The law states that Europeans (from a EU-country) can work in any EU-country they wish to and for these lucky guys, playing football is a job. So they have the same rights as everybody else (please let's not launch the big words such as human rights, but let's speak about workers' right).

Some people, UEFA and Platini ahead, are trying to convince the EU that professional sport is not an ordinary job and that domestic football is part of our European culture (and thus needs to have some adjustments). They currently failed to convince the EU but this might happen and this could make sense to me too.
However, I am wondering how the European Court would react if Players' Association complained. I'm not a lawyer but i'm not sure that the EU-Commission could win.

PS: my personal situation is totally irrelevant too, but just to reply to your point, football is not an exception. In my industry the job market already is pretty much globalized. Your nationality doesn't count really but your results count.

Author: ikoon
Date: 21-08-2007, 20:36

Living in the world of ikoon I would prefer to keep my football skills secret. Sounds scary: "before rights of footballers comes first the national interest".

That's your choise. No one oblige you to choose a career. If you want to create mercenaries that is your problem. I want players who play with skills + heart, at least a little heart and the ones who respect theiir nationality, at least a little.

Living in the world of investition i would preffer to buy players rather than to play a long and risky lotery game and raise them.

What is the point of clubs from places like Bacau, Craiova, Petrosani, Timisoara, Pitesti, Galati etc. etc. having youth teams & investing any money in youth development if all their best players can simply up sticks & move to Bucharest because the clubs there have more money?

Stop it! They must remain in not just the country but the city where they have their first club - as a 12 year old or whatever... That stops the same boring old clubs dominating their domestic leagues & football everywhere gets much more interesting. What do you think?

Yom make a country/city analogy that doesn't work.

In theory every city club can either invest in youngs, either buy seniors, or both. The sport legislation and competition formats don't make discriminations between cities. But every sportive asociation is a member of the same FA, and all the romanian players are legitimated by the same FA. Is not the same thing, UEFA don't offer the same rights to all its FAs, not even equal vot rights. I'm tired of those artificial analogies. Members of UN or not, countries are NOT like cities; they are differentiated by a specific culture/origin/nationality barrier and should be treated as such. We don't have clasifications between cities, ranking or spots; every city can fill a entire league with teams if it has the strength.

But you argument regarding "raising youngs" stands; indeed the clubs who want to make top performances will not sell their juniors to the big clubs; others who are more interested in profit than performance will sell them. Is simple. The difference is that they sell them in the same country; they will play in the same competition or better, but in the same country, for the same nationality fans. The countries/nationality provide a barrier that the cities do not. Is your problem, if you don't want to acnowlege it.

Inside the countries we don't have finaciar discrimination, like it exist in euro cups. Every team, no matter how small budget/salaries has or from what small city it can play top level football, under the same rules like any other team from the same country, under the same formats,etc.

Fan's opinions are irrelevant here. The law states that Europeans (from a EU-country) can work in any EU-country they wish to and for these lucky guys, playing football is a job. So they have the same rights as everybody else (please let's not launch the big words such as human rights, but let's speak about workers' right).

PS: my personal situation is totally irrelevant too, but just to reply to your point, football is not an exception. In my industry the job market already is pretty much globalized. Your nationality doesn't count really but your results count.

The fans opinion are very relevant here. Indeed the european laws allow the freedom of work inside the UN to all members, and players have work contracts. Period. From the purely european legal perspective: end of discussion, find other subject, go and eat some donuts.

However the law can be changes, how i suggested, the players conection with the sportive associations can be modify to not be a work contract anymore, or like an exception.

Some people, UEFA and Platini ahead, are trying to convince the EU that professional sport is not an ordinary job and that domestic football is part of our European culture (and thus needs to have some adjustments). They currently failed to convince the EU but this might happen and this could make sense to me too.

That's what i'm talking about. Football indeed is not an ordinary job, not like nature, reward or like its effect on the masses. Different situations require different legal rules.

However, I am wondering how the European Court would react if Players' Association complained. I'm not a lawyer but i'm not sure that the EU-Commission could win.

Of courese they will win. They have the current law on their side. I didn't say that will be easy and it require some changes, i said that is necesarely for the purpose of this discussion. Please read the topic again.

You don't agree that football is an exception? Why?

1. If the football will be so globalised like the extent you suggest: the World Cup, Euro Cup, etc will be friendlies not official tournaments.

2. The national teams coaches would have no right to recall players from their "place of work", risking them to injury or to not be available to the "employer" for some time.

3. UEFA will not make such discrimination between different national leagues, regarding spot distribution and competition access.

4. The players will have salaries close to average salary/country.

5. UEFA will not impose conditions about how many non-UE players should be used in Euro Cups.

And i really want you to think that globalisation don't mean EU-nisation. For how long the non-EU players/workers don't have the same rights like the EU players/workers, the term "globalisation" is beyond your reach, or anyone else who impersonate himself in a big human rights defender, but have no ideea at least what the Declaration contains, or how it is applied or the fact that no human right is absolute, but conditionate with the obligation to not contradict the other humans's rights.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 21-08-2007, 20:38	Not living in EU I'm ignorant when it comes to some simple things. Hence the question - if EU considers footballers as workers does EU also consider football clubs as nothing more than companies? At least on the professional level.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: Lyonnais Date: 22-08-2007, 00:09	yes, of course. Some of them are even listed in the stock exchange.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: ignjat63 Date: 22-08-2007, 00:24	Thanks. Well, if Serbian clubs were treated as companies we would be without professional football. It is as simple as that.Instead, they are considered citizens' associations even if they are pros. So the strict economic rules are not applied to them.

Author: isidromv
Date: 22-08-2007, 08:41

In Spain if a club (citizen's association) reaches professional football (that is the first 2 levels) it can decide to be converted to a proper company (S.A.D.), in fact there are only 3 clubs remaining in Primera Division: Real Madrid, FC Barcelona and Osasuna. The conversion from club to S.A.D can not be undone, even if the team is relegated to amateur football.

But nevertheless, the players have a work contract and the work laws apply to this contract, it doesn't matter if it is a club or a S.A.D.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 22-08-2007, 08:48	Football is a nice game. To play or to watch. But just a game. Individual rights being inferior to the organization of a game opens a door to a multiple of other exceptions. Not my way of living.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: ikoon Date: 22-08-2007, 14:56	I would disagree. I think that football is more than a game. It is a mass phenomenum.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: bert.kassies Date: 22-08-2007, 15:20	Thanks to human rights it's absolutely fine to disagree But the same argument as to games applies to mass phenomena.

Re: Did "Bosman" kill European Cups..and football?
Author: ikoon Date: 22-08-2007, 15:45 Edited by: ikoon at: 22-08-2007, 15:49	I'm a big fan of human rights. That's why i insist that i should have the same rights like any top 5 football fans to see good football and performance made by my own league made by romanian players (i'm modest here). Of course i can work in UN space too starting this year; i'm proud to say that i became officialy a "human" starting with 2007. I feel so lucky.