EastStandBlue
Life President
Well, anybody could have seen that one coming. No sooner than Le Havre made idol threats to sue Manchester United for all they're worth, A Fifa judge has cleared them of any wrongdoing and allowed them to sign French starlet Paul Pogba immediately.
United are usually as immaculate off the pitch as they can be on it and, coupled with the best sports lawyers money can buy, it's of no surprise that no immediate rule break was found. Le Havre seemed to forget this going into the deal and, instead of negotiating a fair price, will now receive a pittance for potential.
Because of Pogba's age he could not, as Le Havre argued, have signed a professional contract and remained listed as an amateur receiving normal expenses. It's human nature to swap that for the comparable riches on offer at the European giants, even if the football had nothing to do with it. The French club have the right to appeal, and have said they will be pursuing the issue further but, with a Fifa appointed judge already having his say on the matter, there's little point of mounting up further legal costs. This case could do the unthinkable and end up in Le Havre losing money for their prize asset.
Where does this ruling leave small clubs though? Well, between a rock and a big club, apparently. Apprentices cannot sign a full-time contract until they are 16 and, with this ruling as precedent, will receive no help from Fifa if they choose to flock elsewhere before they come of age. Clubs within the Football League came to realise this some time ago, and have since adopted a "If you can't beat them, negotiate with them" attitude and do actually benefit from such a stance. The allure of the Premiership is a strong one, and you cannot forbid a youngster from succumbing to it.
Chelsea fans and officials alike will be wondering just where this judgement leaves them, but there is some difference between acting within the law and signing a player before he turns 16 and offering an under-contract player the world, well, kitchens to be exact in Chelsea's case, in order for him to renege on his existing contract and sign for them.
The initial response from the governing bodies of football was ferocious given the lack of substantial evidence. They promised to clamp down on illegal player trading and the poaching of Europe's young talent... a blanket ban on foreign transfers for players under the age of 18 was proposed, and supported, by many. Quite how that'll sit with EU Law and the restriction of trade act I don't know, and I suspect they don't either.
Until then, and it could be some time till such a restriction is settled, it looks as if clubs now have a license to sample whatever talent takes their fancy.
United are usually as immaculate off the pitch as they can be on it and, coupled with the best sports lawyers money can buy, it's of no surprise that no immediate rule break was found. Le Havre seemed to forget this going into the deal and, instead of negotiating a fair price, will now receive a pittance for potential.
Because of Pogba's age he could not, as Le Havre argued, have signed a professional contract and remained listed as an amateur receiving normal expenses. It's human nature to swap that for the comparable riches on offer at the European giants, even if the football had nothing to do with it. The French club have the right to appeal, and have said they will be pursuing the issue further but, with a Fifa appointed judge already having his say on the matter, there's little point of mounting up further legal costs. This case could do the unthinkable and end up in Le Havre losing money for their prize asset.
Where does this ruling leave small clubs though? Well, between a rock and a big club, apparently. Apprentices cannot sign a full-time contract until they are 16 and, with this ruling as precedent, will receive no help from Fifa if they choose to flock elsewhere before they come of age. Clubs within the Football League came to realise this some time ago, and have since adopted a "If you can't beat them, negotiate with them" attitude and do actually benefit from such a stance. The allure of the Premiership is a strong one, and you cannot forbid a youngster from succumbing to it.
Chelsea fans and officials alike will be wondering just where this judgement leaves them, but there is some difference between acting within the law and signing a player before he turns 16 and offering an under-contract player the world, well, kitchens to be exact in Chelsea's case, in order for him to renege on his existing contract and sign for them.
The initial response from the governing bodies of football was ferocious given the lack of substantial evidence. They promised to clamp down on illegal player trading and the poaching of Europe's young talent... a blanket ban on foreign transfers for players under the age of 18 was proposed, and supported, by many. Quite how that'll sit with EU Law and the restriction of trade act I don't know, and I suspect they don't either.
Until then, and it could be some time till such a restriction is settled, it looks as if clubs now have a license to sample whatever talent takes their fancy.
