Arsène Wenger planning to keep it in the family














The mysterious case of Carlos Tevez and his contract

Reports suggest Manchester United forward Carlos Tevez has the right to break from his contract and leave for free.

It’s quite fortunate that Carlos Tevez doesn’t want to break from his contract as if he did, it would surely tear a whole in the football universe and release with it a messy gunk of goo.

We all know Tevez and Mascherano both transferred to West Ham under the ownership of two third parties (Media Sports Investment and Just Sports Inc). Just what involvement the parties have now is unclear but Kia Joorabchian is still involved. Mascherano has signed for Liverpool outright while Tevez is still unattached to a club. It must be noted that third party ‘ownership’ is not illegal, providing there’s no right given to the them to influence the polices and performance of the team (such as missing a penalty etc.).

“It is a little bit like a loan deal between two clubs, except it is a loan deal between the club and a third party,” says Joorabchian, feeling like a modern day Robin Hood. “Third-party transfers are a way of bringing outstanding players to clubs that would not be able to afford them ordinarily. So they increase the competition. Why should only Manchester United and Chelsea be able to afford the best players?”

When the Argentinian joined Manchester United, the Red Devils agreed to a two-year lease deal worth £10million with his owners. United have registration of the player for that duration but the third-party owners have retained all economic rights over him. Under the terms, Tevez is not allowed to agree to anything without their consent and only MSI possess unilateral right to terminate the contract.

But if Tevez did want to leave he would have European Law on his side to allow him to do that. Chris Heaton-Harris, president of the EU’s powerful Sports Intergroup which deals with sporting matters across the continent and also East Midlands MEP Chris Heaton-Harris said: “It is unique and bizarre that an entity, rather than a club, owns a player.


Heaton-Harris then continued: “Bosman was tied to a football club and Tevez is tied to a company. There is very little difference. It is a simple follow-on from Bosman

That case of course revolutionized football because it meant a player is no longer tied to a club when his contract does indeed run out. The Belgian defender’s representative claimed any third party (a club) which governs the movement of a player between jobs is a restraint of trade, prohibited under Treaty of Rome. The legal sticking point is likely to be the fact MSI signed their contract with Tevez in South America (ie outside of EU jurisdiction), but since he wants to play in Europe, his contract is arguably open to challenge within the EU.

Carlos Tevez’s lease deal has run it’s course and hypothetically should he wish to leave, would undergo a pretty lengthy court procedure as the Bosman case took five years, something the player is not motivated to do.

In employment terms, contracts of employments are to be distinguished from contracts for services, which typically deal with independent contractors or other types of employments such as agency workers (and which most probably includes footballers). Contracts of employments are the standard contracts which you and I have and which differ from contracts for services as they have certain implied terms embedded in to the contract (like the restraint clause), something which is missing in contracts for services.

In employment terms, restraint clauses are not unlawful  unless they are deemed ‘unfair’, which then the employee must prove. A company could restrict an employee from working at another company for a certain number of years if there is a risk of highly confidential information being passed on, or a skill that gives the company a USP.

In football, players have already made an obligation with the club for the number of years they can stay and therefore do not have the power to leave in the middle. (In the case of Bosman, he left at the end, a contract of employment doesn’t necessary have a time-limit).

It’s probably just as well then, Carlos Tevez has sought not to exercise such rights and let Kia Joorabchian handle the matter.

By this time you may have noticed nothing has been said about Arsenal, this being an Arsenal weblog. So to wrap things up, wouldn’t it be great if the Gunners signed Tevez? Do we need him? We’ve got many quality strikers. Eh, probably couldn’t afford him anyway…

A lack of loyalty or the new psychological contract in football?

Money talks the loudest once again, Valencia in deep financial trouble while Van Persie has become the main man at Arsenal.

1. The ‘Kaka’ saga and the one of Andrei Arshavin raises the question of loyalty. At the end of one spectrum is the Brazilian who is being forced to make a decision on his loyalty after a reported £108m offer while Arshavin has been trying to force himself out of the club ever since the Euro’s. Is this the age of a lack of loyalty or is this part of the new psychological contract in football?

The psychological contract is identified as ‘the perceptions of the two parties, employee and employer, of what their mutual obligations are towards each other.’ (GUEST, D.E. and CONWAY, N. (2002)). These obligations will often be informal and imprecise: they may be inferred from actions or from what has happened in the past, as well as from statements made by the employer.

The argument is that the psychological contract has changed since the economic downturn in the early 90’s where job security was not guaranteed anymore. The old contract involved an understanding where the employee offers commitment to the company as a return of the employer giving job security, good wages and the capacity to progress through the company. The new psychological contract is said to mainly revolve around the individual; wanting more opportunities for development (to progress to other organisations as well as within the current one), flexibility and meaningful work experiences.

Could this be incorporated to football?

Players like Maldini and Ryan Giggs are becoming a less of an occurrence, playing at a single club for the rest of their career. Players want to move on, and to move on to a bigger club. Loyalty is no longer the main factor and the period where the club is the more powerful party seems no more or at least not at the very highest level. We can see clubs preparing for and changing their model for such departures.

The argument is that on both footballing level and the real working environment this has always been the case meaning both theories may be flawed. Either way it seems the individual but more crucially, the ones with the cash have the biggest say.

2. If there was ever one example in how NOT to run a club, it is running a club in the same way as Valencia. Not too recently they decided to build a new stadium (a beautiful one at that) but unlike Arsenal were already €400m in debt and are now by €600m. A club with a decent sized fan base and of decent size tried to punch above their weight by overpaying for players and their wages. They still haven’t found a buyer for the old stadium (or there’s no sign of him/them) and they have at the end of the month to find €30m. If things don’t pick up expect a clearance sale come summer.

3. Robin Van Persie once again inspired Arsenal to a 3-1 win over Hull City. The substitution of Adebayor when previously it would have been the Dutchman underlying his current importance. The performance also showed the ability of the team and that it is nearly complete. Still not as convincing when keeping the ball to deny pressure on the defence and one may argue not very dynamic therefore leading to the use of a high line and highly mobile players.

The strikers fit the mold and on the whole the defence look stronger but central midfield when everyone is back is the main position of uncertainty. Diaby looked strong, got some good tackles in (5 to Denilson’s 2) and tried to provide forward impetus. Both players average touch positions were higher up the pitch as the Gunners were more direct. An interesting stat is that Adebayor received the ball 44 times to Van Persie’s 28 and the two still need work on their combination play.