SoccerShout.com

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

There’s an interesting piece of news breaking that UEFA is petitioning the EU to prohibit transfers of players until they are 18.  It sounds like the recommendation is that a players signs ’schoolboy’ forms with a club, and will be prevented from leaving until they turn 18.

This seems like a knee-jerk reaction to the recent transfers of players like John Bostock, who recently moved from Palace to Spurs at the age of 16.  Another name being bandied around as the antithisis of what is good for a young man is Cesc Fabregas, who moved from Barcelona to Arsenal, also at the age of 16.

Would such a rule eliminate the issue of players being snatched-up by the big clubs when they are 16 or 17?  Yes, of course.  But that is the wrong question to ask.

It’s like the joke:

Patient: “Doctor, it hurts when I lift my arm up”.

Doctor: “Then stop doing it”.

This prescription doesn’t address the underlying problem.  Similarly, a ban on transfer for under-18’s would not be beneficial.

Some immediate problems that spring to mind:

• You’re forcing the player to make an irrevocable decision at a much younger age.  You pick at a club at 14 and you can’t move on until 18 - and then only with a transfer fee.
• What if a player isn’t happy with the training they are getting at their local club?  They can’t leave, and the club has no incentive to step up their game.
• What if the player’s family wants to move to another part of the country?  Would they be forced to drop out of football?
• If a player feels they would be better served at another club - either for their development or their financial health - why should we stand in their way?

It’s also interesting to note that Simon Jordon wasn’t complaining so much about a player leaving as he was about him not getting his due compensation.  Was Simon Jordon concerned about John Bostock, or about Simon Jordon?  Can we really trust local clubs to do the right thing by young footballers once they have a monopoly on their time?

All of this has got me thinking - what is so different about a footballer’s education, compared to any other profession?

If the answer is nothing - and I’m struggling to come up with any other answer -  then it follows that maybe some kind of set-up that models the university system would be most sensible.

All over the world, young men and women are getting educated by highly knowledgeable teachers.  Such an education can set a person on the path to a well compensated career.  Why couldn’t football follow the same model?

In effect, I’m advocating those regional “centers of excellence” that used to exist.  At the age of 18, the player is ready to make a decision to join a professional club - but, most importantly, without the bonds of a schoolboy contract with their local club.

So what happens at 18?  Do all the best players go to the best clubs?

Well….maybe.  Isn’t that what happens in the real world?  If you’re the top of your computer class at Stamford, you’ll probably get a lot of good offers from the best companies around - the Googles and the Facebooks.  Should that young man or woman be forced into some struggling company in order to balance competition?  Of course not!

But this is sport, not business.  The same rules cannot apply if we hope to preserve the notion of competition.

So is some sort of draft in order?  I’d give this another ‘maybe’.  They would have to be a minimum wage involved, and the player should be free to leave after a short period of time - maybe 3 years maximum.

I see a lot of merit to this.  There are benefits for the players, the clubs, and the sport - and each is also giving up a little too.