EPL Talk » FIFA

Transfer Ban for United?

Adam Mikhail — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 21:41:06 +0000

It seems like this is all coming out of nowhere. Any fan of the game knows that the “tapping-up” allegations have always been prominent but rarely has it been so harshly punished. From United’s perspective, they were accused of tapping up Dimitar Berbatov and Wayne Rooney in the recent past and accused Real Madrid of tapping-up Ronaldo(the accusing needed not be done, Ronaldo was caught on camera). Now, we have the tapping up issue of Paul Pogba.

This morning, FIFA announced the two-year transfer ban of Chelsea Football Club for acquiring the signature of Gael Kakuta, who had signed a non-solicitation agreement with French club Lens. This evening, The Times are reporting that a similar case has been filed against United for the signing of Le Havre youngster Paul Pogba and that the situation is not yet resolved, according the club’s managing director.

In a matter of days, we’ve heard about three issues that could potentially harm English teams. First, Michel Platini singled out Manchester City’s spending and claimed they would not be allowed to participate in Europe if they could not balance the books – all the while not mentioning the actions of Real Madrid. Now there are two more issues with top English clubs that could see a serious downsizing of the English club dominance – assuming the sanctions are carried out.

FIFA Bans Chelsea From Buying Players Until 2011

tyduffy — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:26:12 +0000

It’s funny how karma works. Chelsea took an inhumanely stern line with Adrian Mutu, and now FIFA has taken a stern line with them.

The Blues have been found guilty of “inducing” French midfielder Gael Kakuta to break his contract with Lens in 2007. FIFA has forbid them to participate in the next two transfer windows, barring them from signing a player until 2011.

Chelsea was also fined €130,000. Kakuta has been fined €780,000 and banned for the next four months.

Kakuta is the brightest star in Chelsea’s academy. He’s an attacking left-winger, who was the youth team’s top scorer and academy player of the year. He was named in Chelsea’s Champions League squad before the ruling.

Chelsea have been found guilty of malfeasance in the transfer market before. The Premier League fined Chelsea £300,000, Jose Mourinho £200,000 and Ashley Cole £100,000 in the tapping up scandal of 2005.

The Blues have ten days to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. It’s probably a safe bet they will do so.

Is the penalty too harsh? Can Chelsea compete for the Champions League, or even the Premier League without bringing in fresh talent?

Should FIFA Use Live Video Review?

Ethan Armstrong — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:58:08 +0000

Yesterday, I considered the question of the name of our sport, football vs soccer. Today I jump on another question regarding the purity of the beautiful game: should we implement live video review? Please use the comment section to weigh in on this issue.

If I ever got dragged to a birthday party for FIFA President Sepp Blatter and was forced to stand up and say something nice about the guest of honor, the best I could probably muster is:

He’s got the coolest name in football after Titi Camara.

That’s wracking my brain under pressure to come up with a pleasantry for world football’s most powerfully controversial figure.

From pushing his absurd “home grown” rule where sides would need to field 6 domestic players in a starting line-up to suggesting that women’s football would be more popular if the players wore tighter shorts… From his labeling of Cristiano Ronaldo as “a slave” when Manchester United held onto him last summer to allegations that his 1998 election was rigged… Blatter will forever be known for doing and saying things that are outrageous and absurd.

But lo and behold, for once, he’s done something reasonable, something I actually agree with. Maybe I can say something nice at that party after all.

After last week’s Confederations Cup controversy over Howard Webb’s video-influenced penalty decision (described in more detail here by EPL Talk’s Rory Tevlin), Blatter announced that pitchside television monitors will be banned at international matches. Or at least turned so the fourth official cannot see them.

Banned, turned, switched over to Gordon Ramsay’s F Word: it doesn’t particularly matter. The important thing is FIFA avoid live video review in football at all costs.

There are those who say: But, look! It worked!

Supposedly, the fourth official saw the handball on the television monitor. He told Howard Webb ab0ut it. Webb had already given the corner kick, but now changed the call to penalty kick. Brazil converted and won it 4-3. So the call had been wrong. Webb corrected himself. Scant time was lost.

The main problem with video review in other sports is the stoppage it causes in play. Professional American football may be the worst perpetrator. The stoppage for video review is one of the many tools the NFL uses to keep a hold of the viewer for a good four hours. The officials will stop play to review close calls. And the coaches are each given a flag to toss on the pitch if they want to ask for a review. Mind-boggling considering the sport is an offspring of concise, 80-minute Rugby.

Don’t take this (or my previous article) as an attack on American football. It’s a wonderful sport. But the action comes in short bursts between time-outs, team changes and a steady helping of commercial breaks. If futbal football and Rugby football are great feasts, than American football is snacking between meals.

And now, baseball has sneaked video review into the mix! Only for limited use, they say. But it already has the officials taking time from game play to watch a video. “Sometimes it takes longer for the manager to get kicked out of the game,” said Dioner Navarro, glowing over the new procedure after catching during the first play that utilized video replay. Yes, Dioner, but at least a manager ejection is part of the action of a baseball game. The spectators have something thrilling to watch. Have you really stopped the game? I’m certainly not suggesting FIFA do away with ejections!

My fear is, with video replay, the MLB have opened the door for further stoppage. And there are those who would have FIFA do the same.

The argument, for now, is that Webb’s “use” of video review didn’t cause any stoppage because the monitor near the fourth official was a live feed. The use of it to overturn a decision was rapid and correct. But once we open that avenue, we are at risk for taking the concept to a debilitating extreme. What happens when we stumble across calls that are not so easy to review in haste. Soon we are stopping the match to consider the replay. In a game full of nuance, it will be tempting to use replay more frequently than we intend. Stoppage time piles up and our precious 90 minute time limit is obliterated. Or what happens when we decide the fourth official needs more information to make this work. We give him multiple monitors to cover all the off-the-ball action. Is he watching the television or the match? He’ll be removed from procedings. He may as well watch from home with his headset on.

The thing is we don’t need live video review. Officiating has always been and will always be fallible because the referees are human. But as long as they are equally human in both directions, the game is fair enough. The missed calls are something we all have to deal with. And no amount of technology will ever remove all the fallibility from officiating.

I use the term live video review in this piece because I am not opposed to post-match video review. Reversing incorrect bookings, discovering serial mistakes, or post-match punishment of players for bad tackles and dives could all be useful. To find the problems and correct them off the pitch won’t take from match play and could help officials learn from past mistakes while discouraging diving and dangerous fouls.

Live video review, though, is a road FIFA should never go down. Just play the game. Other sports should look to football, Rugby and any other sport that works hard to keep things moving. Video replay is an ill not a boon. FIFA must keep the door shut on it.

So for now, Mr Blatter, I applaud you, quietly, for turning the television around. A minor good decision that will surely, in the long view, be drowned in your sea of controversy. But at least I’ll have something nice to say on your birthday.

Tomorrow: do we expect too much from our International football?

Interview: Ján Figel’ (European Commission)

Matthew Semisch — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 17:31:22 +0000

If you consider yourself a political junkie on top of being an EPL newshound, then we certainly have quite the interview for you today.

With FIFA’s proposed ‘6+5’ rule to place limits on the number of foreign-born players in domestic club teams rearing its ugly head in the press once again in recent weeks, we here at EPL Talk thought it best to go straight to the top to get the European Union’s official reaction for ourselves, and we’ve done just that.

Here, we feature Ján Figel’, the European Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth. His jurisdiction also covers sport issues, and it is for that reason why we approached him for a written interview to get his thoughts on FIFA’s controversial proposal as well as such topics as the European Court of Justice’s landmark 1995 ruling on the Jean-Marc Bosman case, who the Commissioner has had to work with on the issue of ‘6+5’ and how often, and also whether or not ‘6+5’ has been much of a ‘water-cooler’ topic of discussion within the Berlaymont building, which houses the headquarters of the European Commission, the executive branch of the EU.

First of all, Commissioner, for the benefit of any of our readers who may be new to the realm of European politics, could you please describe for us what all your job entails, especially in relation to sport?

Figel’: My main areas of responsibility are education, vocational training, culture and youth policy, but I am also the European Commissioner for sport issues. Sport is not an area in which the European Commission has any formal powers according to the EC Treaty, so your readers are probably wondering, “Why is there a European Commissioner for sport, then?” Well, the answer is that many areas of sport fall within the scope of Community law, especially when we talk about sport as an economic activity. Then, for example, the EU’s competition law and internal market rules apply to sport.

But of course, sport is not like any straightforward economic activity; it has health benefits, social aspects and educational value in addition to purely economic elements. This specific nature of sport was highlighted in the Commission’s main policy document in this area, which we call the ‘White Paper on Sport‘, published in 2007.

It was governmental and non-governmental stakeholders from the Member States that asked the European Commission to reinforce the promotion of European sport; hence the White Paper. The White Paper was the first time that all the diverse Court judgments and other relevant decisions and developments in sport were drawn together into one coherent document, to present a one-stop, comprehensive treatment of sport at the EU level.

My job consists of listening to sports organizations and stakeholders, as well as Member State authorities, to facilitate contacts between the various interested parties and head off potential problems before they germinate. I am also following up on the White Paper’s list of 53 tangible actions at EU level in sport, actions that, taken together, are known as the ‘Pierre de Coubertin Action Plan’. These actions include things like facilitating a social dialogue with sport stakeholders, to support employees and employers, for example, or coordinating EU approach to the fight against doping in sport.

Last month, the Institute for European Affairs released a report declaring that FIFA’s proposed ‘6+5’ rule does in fact comply with European Community Law and the principle of free movement of workers. What has been your reaction to the report’s findings, and does the fact that FIFA commissioned the report affect its credibility?

Figel’: It is well-established that professional football players are ‘workers’ under EU law. So, for the European Commission, the EU’s rules on the free movement of workers, and the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of nationality, clearly apply. This has been made clear by the European Court of Justice in various judgments, including the famous Bosman ruling in 1995: a system of quotas based on nationality would simply be illegal under current EU law.

My services are analyzing the report (a 200 page document) and will meet its authors and FIFA to have an exchange of views on the report’s main conclusions.

At this stage, it seems to me that the report by INEA is not adding new significant insights into this debate. The main idea behind the report is that the 6+5 rule would not infringe EU law, as it is not based on nationality, but on the eligibility to play for a national team. However, the Commission remains of the opinion that the 6 + 5 Rule, even when it is re-phrased to refer to “those eligible to play for the national team”, still ultimately implies as a result a quota-based system based on nationality, because obviously only nationals could play for the national teams.

The European Commission is the defender of EU law, and as such, cannot agree to an illegal system. So, as long as FIFA keep on proposing the 6 + 5 rule as it is currently formulated, the Commission will not be able to endorse the application of the rule within the European Union.

It’s as simple as that: the 6 + 5 rule cannot apply within the EU.

Much noise is made about the ’specificity’ of sport that I mentioned earlier. The specific nature of sport, or its ’specificity’, has also been repeatedly acknowledged by the Commission and the European Court of Justice over the years, so that European jurisprudence permits some derogations from the rigorous application of Community laws in certain cases. But the specificity of sport cannot be used to justify the ‘6 + 5′ rule: the specificity of sport cannot be used as an argument to justify a general exemption from the application of EU law, which is what the ‘6 + 5′ rule aims to do.

One should also recognize that the EU itself enjoys its ’specificity’. The EU is a unique organization, not comparable to any other experience of regional integration in the world, as the Treaty on which the EU is founded grants a series of rights and freedoms directly to EU citizens. Looked at this way, the specificity of the EU and of its rules should also be taken into account by international sports federations when setting the rules of the game.

I am frequently asked if the Commission can ever reach agreement with FIFA on this issue. For me, this question is largely beside the point: it’s ultimately a matter for the European Court of Justice to decide. If FIFA were to impose the ‘6+5′ rule in the EU, any professional football clubs or players who felt that they were treated unfairly by the rule could take the issue to the Court. And they would win.

Of course, the Commission is in dialogue with sports organizations, including FIFA, and is looking into ways of reaching agreement in ways that are compatible with EU law. That way, we can avoid lengthy and weary legal battles from developing in the European courts.

When reminded of the controversy surrounding FIFA’s (and UEFA’s, lest we forget) proposed limits on foreign players in club sides, many people think back to the ECJ’s Bosman ruling. Considering that that was well over a decade ago now, do you feel that public reaction to the ruling would be any different if it was handed down today as opposed to back then?

Figel’: I don’t think it is useful to speculate on where we’d be if there had been no Bosman case, but one thing is clear: if the equivalent of the Bosman ruling had only been handed down now, in 2009, I expect the ruling would be applauded as much now as it was then by the footballers concerned, as well as all those with a love for ‘The Beautiful Game’.

Besides, there has been much talk about the “out-of-datedness” of the Bosman ruling. The INEA report affirms that the Court would give a different ruling on the same case nowadays, considering the “negative” developments induced by the 1995 ruling. To that, I can respond that the Court not only confirmed the reasoning behind the ruling, but it also extended its effects to professional footballers belonging to countries with whom the EU has signed particular agreements as recently as in 2003 (Kolpak ruling) and 2005 (Simutenkov ruling).

Obviously ‘6+5’ has been a very contentious issue which inevitably has had people of all walks of life talking about it. Are you reminded of it very often by your colleagues at Berlaymont?

Figel’: As I said earlier, my primary areas of responsibility are in education and training, culture and youth policy. But EU initiatives in those areas tend to have a much more medium- to long-term perspective. Therefore, they do not hit the headlines all too often. That is quite different when it comes to sport, and especially football! ‘6+5′ certainly sparked many discussions in the corridors of the Commission.

Speaking hypothetically, if FIFA gets its way and ‘6+5’ is fully implemented, is there any concern within the European Community that domestic leagues in other parts of the world would gain ground in terms of quality of competition at the expense of their European counterparts?

Figel’: As I mentioned earlier, if FIFA decide to ignore our advice, and impose the 6+5 rule in the EU, I would expect the issue to land in the lap of the European Court of Justice pretty quickly. All it takes is for one professional football club or player to feel that he was treated unfairly by the rule, and he could take the matter to the Court. On the strength of existing jurisprudence, as well as the fundamental principle of the freedom of movement of workers in the EU, and the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality, the outcome is, in my view, and without prejudice to the opinion of the Court, utterly predictable: the 6+5 Rule would have to be struck down within the EU.

Considering that EPL Talk focuses largely on the Barclays Premier League in England, I feel somewhat obliged to ask: Where it regards ‘6+5,’ have you heard more from higher-profile associations in countries like England, Spain and Italy – countries whose bigger club teams may feel that they would have more to lose with a rule like ‘6+5’ in place – than associations that don’t normally get as much of the spotlight?

Figel’: My contacts with the sporting world are mainly through trans-national organizations, such as UEFA, ECA (European Club Association), EPFL (the Association of European Professional Football Leagues), FIFPro (the international players’ union), FIFA and the IOC & EOC (the International and European Olympic Committees) and others. I have not so far been directly approached by the leagues of the bigger countries on the topic of 6+5.

This may be because of my dialogue with UEFA. You see, UEFA have proposed a promising alternative to the FIFA ‘6+5′ proposal: the “Home-Grown Player Rule”.As your readers may already know, this refers to the rules adopted by UEFA in 2005 for its competitions. The Home-Grown Player Rule is currently being phased in gradually. The Rule applies to the ‘A’ list of 25 players, and says that the ‘A’ list should have a minimum of eight “home-grown trained” players by the 2008-09 season. These ‘home-grown’ players would have been trained between the ages of 15 and 21 for at least three years in one training centre belonging to the club or another centre of the same national football association.

The European Commission has analyzed this proposal, and in May 2008 concluded that the Home-Grown Player Rule does not constitute any direct discrimination, and that it seems to be compatible with EU law. This distinguishes the rule from the FIFA 6 + 5 proposal. A further review of the HGP rule is scheduled for 2012, by when the rule will have been fully operational.

In doing my research for this interview, I was unable to find out which football team(s) you support, if any. Are there any teams in particular – both club and country, although the latter seems a little more obvious given your nationality – that you support, and how would ‘6+5’ affect them specifically?

Figel’: I traditionally support Slovan Bratislava in my country – Slovakia. In Europe, I like to watch some of the English, Spanish and German teams. As I hope to have made clear, the 6+5 rule would simply be illegal under current EU law, as long as it is a system of quotas based on nationality. Therefore, I would not expect it to have any effect on these teams at all: the rule cannot be applied within the EU.

Finally, how do you see the controversy surrounding ‘6+5’ playing out? Is it even possible to accurately speculate on how long it will take before the matter is finally put to rest?

Figel’: In the light of the Commission’s analysis of the UEFA Home-Grown Player Rule, we believe it is possible for sporting organizations to come up with proposals to bring more balance to the game of football without resorting to illegal direct discrimination. Such proposals have to be based on criteria other than nationality, such as criteria related to the training and education of players. We have explained this to FIFA, and we’ll be having further discussions with them about the issue over the next few months.

For more information on Commissioner Figel’, feel free to visit his homepage on the EC’s official website.

Arsenal Finances Paint Positive Picture While FIFA Wins Round One of the Six Plus Five Battle

Johnathan Starling — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:46:35 +0000

So Arsenal’s half-year finances are out and in all fairness, for being in a recession, they did pretty damn good. When you generate more match day revenue (an increase of 3.3 million to 44.4 million pounds), more television revenue (an increase of 4.5 million to 28.9 million pounds), and end up with a bigger pre-tax profit (increase of 4.5 million to 24.5 million pounds), you simply have to stand back and applaud. A major factor in this would be the total amount spent in the transfer market, a profit of 8 million pounds.

If there is anything to worry about, the finances of the Highbury Square development are a small cause for concern. It just isn’t the big deal that the English media are making it out to be. Here’s what we do know: the 135 million pound loan is due in 14 months time. Thanks to the economy, the property hasn’t sold in the manner Arsenal anticipated. While there is still time for the economy to turn around and for this to be a story about nothing, Arsenal have smartly started preliminary talks with Barclays, RBS and the Bank of Ireland about extending the loan payment. That alone has them one step ahead of the eight ball.

Let us not forget that historically, finances for the next six months usually end up higher than the six months that are being reported. With the Champions League TV revenue added in, and gates continuing to be strong, Arsenal look set to have one hell of a financial year.

The other big story had to just make Sepp Blatter’s day. Then again, when FIFA commissions a report from the Institute of European Affairs, you just had to figure they were going to get what they wanted to hear.

In a nutshell, this INEA report simply states that FIFA’s six plus five rule that has already been passed does not violate any European Union law. When I see quotes like “We took no instructions from FIFA. INEA accepted this commission on condition that our requirements of complete independence were met”, it tells me that there is a serious possibility that there was something exchanged in order for FIFA to come out looking good here.

The European Union has yet to get in on this act. Expect them to shortly. When they do, it’s going to be very interesting to see who ends up winning this war. Something tells me the European Union will be the ones that come out smelling like a rose.

Other Stories
I’m sure this is not what Blackburn wanted to see coming out of their FA Cup defeat to Coventry City…an allegation that Jason Roberts hit a 17 year old Coventry fan.

Salamon Kalou has expressed his desire to play for Arsenal and has admitted he will consider his Chelsea future at the end of the season. So instead of fighting to become a regular Chelsea starter, you just want to head off to Arsenal based on one interview Wenger did?

How serious are Hull City at getting out of their slump? Recalling Dean Windass is a possibility.

And finally, what do Sheffield United feel is owed to them by the Premier League thanks to the Carlos Tevez affair? If you guessed 45.5 million pounds, you win the grand prize.