“À lei da bola” is an opinion column by João Lobão, a lawyer specializing in sports law and founder of L&SP Advogados.
January is just around the corner. For football fans, January is a month of anxiety, a month of decisions in Portugal (League Cup), decisions in European competitions = who will go through, who will be eliminated = and, of course, a month of transfers.
Who stays, who leaves. Where does the club need to strengthen its squad, where should it invest to go “further”? It’s a month of emotions, uncertainties… in short, dreams!
It’s a month of renewed energy, but it’s also a month of apprehension and doubt, of the dark side of football. Of the backroom deals, of looking over one’s shoulder.
The critical period of the last six months of the contract (!)
I’m talking, of course, about the month when players who are six months away from the end of their employment contract with the club they are currently employed by can commit… for example, to their biggest rival (!). They can, consequently, also become rivals in the next sporting season.
The balance between the player’s contractual freedom, the club’s (strictly speaking, a company) free organization, and the integrity of the competition clashes and becomes confused. With this reality in mind, not only national but also international entities are trying to “tame” the players in this game of musical chairs.
FIFA vs. LPFP: Obligations that intersect.
Thus, FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players prescribe that, although a player is free to enter into an employment contract with a third club from the moment there are 6 (six) months remaining on his employment contract, the club intending to sign him must, before doing so, inform the club with which the player has a contract in force.
As a corollary, and reinforcing the obligation of respect between clubs, the LPFP (Portuguese Professional Football League) prescribes in its Competition Regulations that, in the case of a player registration who, in the six months prior to the expiry of the contract in force with a club, enters into an employment contract with another club by May 31 of the current season, it is a conditio sine qua non that proof of communication to the club of origin be attached to the registration process of the new club, within five days from the date of signing.
In other words, while FIFA requires prior notification, the LPFP requires it to be made afterward. The LPFP only mandates this obligation until May 31st of the current season, for obvious reasons related to the sporting calendar and the integrity of the competition (assuming that, from the indicated date, all official competition matches will have already been completed).
The club’s dilemma: lose the financial asset, keep the sporting asset.
It is now important to focus on the dynamics of the club, which sees its financial assets lost, but, on the other hand, still possesses its sporting assets. Achieving this balance is not easy, and the player himself will be more exposed to criticism and suspicion in each of his performances.
Managing these cases will always be a particular matter, and it is impossible to provide a one=size-fits-all answer. However, the employer must always respect basic labor principles, namely by providing equal conditions to their colleagues and never diminishing, antagonizing, excluding, or, hypothetically, placing them on a different training schedule.
January is just around the corner. For football fans, January is a month of anxiety, a month of decisions in Portugal (League Cup), decisions in European competitions = who will go through, who will be eliminated – and, of course, a month of transfers.
Who stays, who leaves. Where does the club need to strengthen its squad, where should it invest to go “further”? It’s a month of emotions, uncertainties… in short, dreams!
It’s a month of renewed energy, but it’s also a month of apprehension and doubt, of the dark side of football. Of the backroom deals, of looking over one’s shoulder.
The critical period of the last six months of the contract (!)
I’m talking, of course, about the month when players who are six months away from the end of their employment contract with the club they are currently employed by can commit… for example, to their biggest rival (!). They can, consequently, also become rivals in the next sporting season.
The balance between the player’s contractual freedom, the club’s (strictly speaking, a company) free organization, and the integrity of the competition clashes and becomes confused. With this reality in mind, not only national but also international entities are trying to “tame” the players in this game of musical chairs.
FIFA vs. LPFP: Obligations that intersect.
Thus, FIFA’s Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players prescribe that, although a player is free to enter into an employment contract with a third club from the moment there are 6 (six) months remaining on his employment contract, the club intending to sign him must, before doing so, inform the club with which the player has a contract in force.
As a corollary, and reinforcing the obligation of respect between clubs, the LPFP (Portuguese Professional Football League) prescribes in its Competition Regulations that, in the case of a player registration who, in the six months prior to the expiry of the contract in force with a club, enters into an employment contract with another club by May 31 of the current season, it is a conditio sine qua non that proof of communication to the club of origin be attached to the registration process of the new club, within five days from the date of signing.
In other words, while FIFA requires prior notification, the LPFP requires it to be made afterward. The LPFP only mandates this obligation until May 31st of the current season, for obvious reasons related to the sporting calendar and the integrity of the competition (assuming that, from the indicated date, all official competition matches will have already been completed).
The club’s dilemma: lose the financial asset, keep the sporting asset.
It is now important to focus on the dynamics of the club, which sees its financial assets lost, but, on the other hand, still possesses its sporting assets. Achieving this balance is not easy, and the player himself will be more exposed to criticism and suspicion in each of his performances.
Managing these cases will always be a particular matter, and it is impossible to provide a one-size-fits-all answer. However, the employer must always respect basic labor principles, namely by providing equal conditions to their colleagues and never diminishing, antagonizing, excluding, or, hypothetically, placing them on a different training schedule.
Workplace harassment: legal limits and consequences
These practices constitute workplace harassment and may even motivate the player to terminate their employment contract.
Similarly, whenever there is any pressure from the club’s management, through moral harassment of the player = excluding him, for example, from participating in official competitions = while he has not renewed his contract with the club, which is obviously illegal and also leads to the player’s legitimate right to terminate his employment contract, invoking just cause.
The player’s perspective: the only moment of complete freedom.
Finally, it remains to analyze the player’s perspective. Today it is common to see great players leave at the end of their contract. The perception today is that the player’s increased value should result in an immediate and direct return.
From this perspective, when players seek to respect the contract they signed and, at its end, improve their economic conditions, they are, strictly speaking, only fighting for their professional self-determination. This should not be interpreted as taking advantage of a situation, but rather, and only, as the benefit inherent in the very specificity of the profession which, unlike all others, prevents the full freedom to decide whether or not to maintain the professional relationship.
That is, unless I am mistaken:
- There is no other profession in which a worker, upon termination of their employment contract, is prevented from working for another employer as a result of disciplinary action by a regulatory body.
- There is no other profession in which the financial burden placed on a worker for prematurely terminating their employment contract is as significant as it is in the world of football.
- There is no other profession in which an employer can refuse to allow a worker to terminate their employment to switch to another employer that guarantees better working conditions.
- There is no other profession that prevents, or, strictly speaking, temporarily limits a worker from registering with another sports organization. Thus, when a player chooses to wait until the end of their employment contract to decide on their next challenge, they are simply taking advantage of the only time when they are fully able to choose their next employer without “constraints.” This is something that, due to the specific nature of the profession, is denied to them for practically their entire career.