Surely it is a form of slavery. How can you sell and buy humans. No other industry does it. By the way, I love footy.
2006-09-01 04:49:07 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football ➔ English Football
It's the same way with all sports. The player signs a contract and the team has the right to trade that contract with any team it wants too.
And you're probably correct, it is the only form of legalized slavery allowed today.
But, the "slaves" get paid awfully well don't you think?
2006-09-01 04:55:38 · answer #1 · answered by Firefly 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called a contract. When the player is out of contract the player can walk away, when he signs it, yes he must abide by it (technically). There was an arguement put forward by the PFA to have the same rights as any other employee with one months notice. Sounds good for the top earners but it also works the other way. A player on £8k per week at a lower club has a bad time and suddenly bye bye. Therefore longer term contracts suit the players, and clubs which can money in from the bigger clubs.
2006-09-01 07:12:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Slavery would mean not getting paid. These guys are pros... they get compensated handsomely. And like the other guy said, they aren't selling the players themselves, but rather the contracts that the player agreed to. If the player really wanted to stay in one place I suppose he could put some sore of no-transfer clause in his contract, but otherwise that's part of the deal; your club can sell your contract and your services if they wish.
Other areas of entertainment do the same thing too. For example, an independent agent selling the contract of a hot young singer to a record company.
2006-09-01 04:59:14 · answer #3 · answered by Kyrix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This was the basis of the Bosman transfer saga during the 90's which led to a complete overhaul of the transfer system in Europe.
Prior to this players were treated as property by clubs(down to their values being included on asset sheets) and could not leave the club at the end of their contract. At this time the player wasn't afforded a choice once the club made a decision.
Bosman fought this in the courts because he wanted to move to another club but was prevented from doing so by his club, because the transfer fee was insufficient. He won the case on restraint of trade grounds and since then players are viewed as employees rather than property.
2006-09-01 06:00:15 · answer #4 · answered by midnight 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the players are "sold" willingly. No player has to join any club they do not want to.
Slavery was buying and selling of unwilling humans, who had no say in the matter at all.
Rather than refering to football players as being "sold" the correct term is i believe "a tranfer fee".
hope this helps.
2006-09-01 04:58:36 · answer #5 · answered by tizzy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if you really want to think about it, corporations do this all the time. Just look at how many banks took over other banks. Then they lay people off, and the ones they keep they have to change everything they do...
What is the differnce? Oh, yeah... regular people don't GET PAID MILLIONS of dollars...
Sign me up for football any day.
2006-09-01 04:56:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Easy the players agree to be bought or sold therefore it has no affect on they're human rights.
2006-09-01 04:55:06 · answer #7 · answered by pete 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They buy the player's contract, not the actual player. Not the person. Not the flesh. Not the bones.
2006-09-01 05:02:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you give me 10 000 000 pounds you can sell me to whoever you like! That's what a lot of these guys get each time they change teams.
2006-09-01 05:02:23 · answer #9 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Contracts rules footballers as well as Bosman ruling.
2006-09-01 22:57:07 · answer #10 · answered by brogdenuk 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋