From Sporting Life.

The two most powerful men in football hailed "an historic day" for the sport after sealing a broad agreement with the European Commission over changes to the transfer system.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter and his UEFA counterpart Lennart Johansson thrashed out the basis for the future of the game after meeting three EC commissioners in Brussels.

The talks represent the first broad agreement on all issues by the EC and the football bodies, and Blatter said afterwards: "I am sure that this was an historic day today.

"There is now a full agreement by FIFA and UEFA that we are near to a solution which will be beneficial to the whole world of football."

The presidents met commissioners Mario Monti, Viviane Reding and Anna Diamantopoulou, after which a joint statement was released.

This read: "At a meeting today, at the highest level, the EC, FIFA and UEFA firmly cemented an agreement on a significant number of issues related to the FIFA rules on the international transfers of footballers." Issues newly agreed include players' contracts to be a minimum of one year and maximum of five years.

The other significant development is an acceptance by the EC that there is a need for "stability of contracts". This is being seen as a victory by FIFA and UEFA, who have argued that allowing players to walk out on contracts at three months' notice would destabilise the whole game.

It also represents an acceptance by the football world that players of all ages should have greater freedom of movement within Europe.

Friday's 'technical meeting' between all parties involved in the talks, also in Brussels, now takes on huge significance, with negotiators having a clear mandate to find acceptable compromises.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Answers

Could be sorted out pretty soon then. It makes Chelsea's 'supposed' offer for Goma a little confusing.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

And from the BBC European Commission and European football authorities have moved closer to agreement over a new transfer system.

The breakthrough follows the first direct talks in the long-running saga between top officials from both sides.

Fifa president Sepp Blatter and his Uefa counterpart Lennart Johansson met with EU commissioners Mario Monti, Viviane Reding and Anna Diamantopoulou.

After three hours of discussions in Brussels, the two parties agreed that:

Contracts will last between one and five years, effectively meaning that a player cannot move twice in the one season;

There will be Europe-wide transfer windows to allow movement of players;

An arbitration panel will decide how much compensation a club losing a player should receive.

However, there are a number of sticking points.

According to Monti, three outstanding issues are still to be resolved:

How to protect young players;

How to penalise the unilateral breaking of a player's contract;

How to calculate compensation when one club buys a young player from another.

"There was a firm political commitment to find a final compromise before the end of February," said Monti.

Blatter told reporters the talks had been "historic" and "fruitful".

Further "technical" talks between EU officials and soccer bodies, including FIFpro, will take place in Brussels on Friday.

"We are near a solution which would be beneficial for the whole world of football and which would enhance the quality of the game," said Blatter.

Failure to come up with a workable deal could prompt Brussels to outlaw today's system, plunging the game into chaos.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Perhaps Dougal could advise me on something that confuses me on this issue.
This is all supposed to be about freedom of movement of workers within the EU. What right does the EC have to dictate the length of anyones contract? If I'm a doctor or a lawyer who wishes to sign either a 6 month, or a 6 year contract, is that any different to a footballer, and how could the EU legitimately prevent me? Surely the terms of a contract between two parties, freely entered into, is strictly their business, and bog all to do with the EC?

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Clarky, if you were a doctor or lawyer, I for one wouldn't enter into any contract with you ;-)

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Clarky you're right about contract length, but they have to put some structure in place, and I think that's what they trying to do with contracts from 1 year upwards. If the transfer windows and such are set then there will only be certain periods of time when contracts could be broken anyway.

The transfer tribunal will be interesting. When this was last in place there was always the nonsense of someone like Man U offering £200,000 for Brian McClair and Celtic wanting £3million it was then up to the tribunal to decide and invariably they tried to keep costs down. An interesting suggestion made was that the two clubs should put in binding sealed requests of their view of the worth and then one of these would be chosen as the going rate. This has such potential for downside (and upside) that the two sides would sort it our before hand.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Macbeth

I can certainly understand the football authorities wanting, indeed needing, a clear structure in place - in fact they have that right now. What I'm struggling with is where the EC get the mandate to interfere in some of these issues.

I can understand them having a problem with Clubs seeking massive transfer fees for players under Contract, and thereby nominally restricting the player's freedom to ply his trade, but they seem to be over-reaching their authority to me, for instance in dictating maximum and minimum lengths of contracts - what's this got to do with them?

Clearly, I must be missing something obvious.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Clarky - dare I suggest they are trying to inject a bit of common sense? Football is a business, but it is different from many businesses we know. What we are looking at here is not a bunch of employees, but a significant resource to an organisation.

Tell me - if a major UK Company had a Director, what sort of deal would s/he be on? Big money for a start. Sackable? Hmmm - maybe "asked to resign with a Golden Handshake". I see this more as an analogy to the football transfer model than I do to Joe Worker. Yes, Joe Worker should be allowed to ply his trade with few constraints - there are many more Jane Workers and Joe Publics out there able to do the job. Not so with Signor Executive. Same with top class footy players, IMHO.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Screacher,

Please understand I am not trying to argue the rights or wrongs about any specific issues - what I am trying to understand is what "right" the European Commission - a pseudo-governmental institution - have to decree what should and shouldn't be adopted by the Football Authorities.

One thing I'm fairly sure about, and that is that it is not their job to oversee the application of common sense - indeed, in most instances where they get involved, they usually manage to ensure precisely the opposite is applied.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Yes, I see what you're trying to do re the rights/wrongs. I'm just trying to sort out in my mind just what the EC think the European football game is. Is it a straight comparison with any EU company? Or are there "extenuating circumstances"?

To B honest, I dunno. No doubt, I could be accused of bias, but BTAIM, I do believe that the football (probably most sports with a signifiacant fan following) are different to your "traditional" businsess. As a businessman, I was simply seeking your views.

Seems you are looking for one answer and I'm looking for another!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

Screacher,

EC intervention of this kind must be based exclusively on the application of European Law, not on issues like common sense - that's why I would really like Dougal's opinion. Over & out.

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

OK - Tarra Mr C!

-- Anonymous, February 14, 2001

If only football was still seen as entertainment rather than a business.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

We may as well get rid of the reserves & youth team.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

The way the transfer system works seems to me to be more like using head hunting as the normal way of recruiting staff, with the added distraction that the company losing the employee gets a massive cut of the severance pay.

I agree with you though Clarky, it's really none of the EU's business how long a contract should be effective. I think it's this head hunt aspect and the fact that clubs are reluctant to simply release employees in whom a large investment might have been made one way or another, that causes the problems.

It's probably the scale of the investment. Most normal employers don't make even long term cash investments of millions in individual employees, so we probably shouldn't object when they try to recoup.

Just out of curiosity, though, do football contracts have written in, a mutually agreed period of notice of leaving ? That doesn't appear to be the case judging by the number of deadbeats we've been stuck with for ages.

Surely we could have used some sort of redundancy argument to have shifted a few of those who's wages are money down the pan, and, in some cases eventually, might not be bettered by incoming transfer fees ?

Looks like greed again played a big part in colouring judgement.

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001

If we buy a player who is say 20 years old we will have to pay compensation to the club responsible for his development.

What if the player then goes on to bogger and better things under our management and is sold at the age of 22, who gets what money?

-- Anonymous, February 15, 2001