What is it with modern footballers throwing a strop to get a transfer?

Dembele, Van Dijk, Courtois, Kovacic and plenty more have done it. The game's truly gone

 

Well they want a transfer so will go to any lengths to get one.

 

Doesn’t help with their agents in their ear all day “advising” them.

 

If I wanted to change my job, move to a different employer, and I was prevented from doing so because my current employer claimed they owned me in some way, I'd be kicking up a fuss too. Although I wouldn't be bairning about it, I'd be in court. I genuinely can't understand how the transfer system is still legal.

 

Perhaps they should think about that when they sign contracts but then later decide don’t want to fulfil them.

 

It's not really a matter of ownership.

It's a matter of what you and your employer have contractually agreed to do.

If you think you should just be able to naff off when you like, despite what you signed up to, would you then also be prepared to have your employer tell you one day that he no longer wants you, and you have to leave and get no more dosh, despite your contract saying you're due it for a few more years?

 

It's a little bit like a company putting a job out to tender, they sign a contract for X amount of cash and are expected to honour it over that time period.

I can't see an issue with it at all, the pre-Bosman days were more constraining for players. The players hold all the cards now. Well, the agents.

 

I've got a contract. Doesn't mean I can't move jobs.

 

No but i'm guessing you have a notice period to work. Nobody is entirely "free" unless they're freelance/ self-employed.

 

As someone else said its not about ownership its about entering into a legal agreement, Same as phone contract etc, once signed up its legally enforceable

 

Just as surprising that clubs want to sign a player with that attitude. If they would do it to get a move to your club, they might do it to you if they want to move again in the future.

 

Seems draconian to me. I can understand being contracted for a year and not being allowed to move in that time, because the club have a year of fixtures to honour, they're entered into a number of competitions and they need staff to fulfil that. But then that comes to an end. The work is complete. Doesn't seem right to me.

 

It's not really ownership, it's about honouring a contract that the player was happy to sign and let's not forget that contracts also work in favour of the player too. I honestly don't think many footballers would want to move to a contract system that we are familiar with.

It seems to me that they're more than happy to sign these contracts but as soon as a better offer comes along they want to be able to just rip them up.

 

I was more than happy to sign my contract, but if a better offer came along I'd want to take it. I'm allowed to. Footballers aren't and it seems that wanting to do so makes them a terrible person. I don't think so.

 

Aside from the top couple of hundred players, contracts give players who are done in football by their early 30s some security... i know id want a guaranteed income for 3 years if i was coming towards the end of my career.

 

But what if as a club you've taken the time to invest in say a youth system?

It can't be wholly fair for the fruits of your labour just to waltz off when they like, for nowt. Even after a year.

Or if you've forked out a bundle to get a player into the club. Then he naffs off when he wishes.

There's got to be some element of equality of arms (even though there isn't really, cos the players already hold all the aces anyway).

 

Compensation for youth development I agree with.

I'm saying I don't understand how the transfer system is legal or fair. A club wouldn't pay a bundle for a player if the transfer system didn't exist.

 

It isn’t. The status quo helps the agents. A crap footballer a la Bosman will challenge it at some point.

 

Christ. Their work isn’t complete at the end of the season if they’re on a 4 year contract. It would be like a contractor entering into a contract to build 4 houses for you, you legally entering into a contract stating they will provide that service for you, them building one then them refusing to complete the other 3 houses because they can earn more putting those workers on a hotel job across town. No one is saying you own those workers, just that you have a legal right to the extent of the works denoted within the contract (eg 4 seasons at your club). Not difficult to follow. Nothing like ownership- if they wanted to cancel their contract they could at any time at their own expense.

 

No it wouldn't