Ok off the back of the Fofana injury (truly hope hope he comes back stronger) and I am just spit balling. What would people reaction be if a club decided a major injury would lessen the effectiveness of a player, should they be allowed to protest at having to pay the wages of said player and even contemplate the termination/Lessing of wages of the contract? Obviously I am being a tad facetious here and do not condone it, but the members who say, "a club shouldn't stand in the way of a player leaving"...does it not work both ways, no matter how rare these incidences are, should contract be respected more than they currently are?
Players contracts (The right to leave vs the right to player protection)
- Thread starter LilyWhiteSpur
- Start date
As with all these sorts of thing there are more rights for an employee than an employer. And there should be.
The clubs surely have insurances which would cover expenses in case of serious injuries.
Absolutely not. He got injured working for them.
If you want to be able to leave for another club whenever you feel like, don't sign a long term contract, and if you do then you need to put a fair release clause in there.
I've got no sympathy with Kane. Spurs aren't obligated to let him leave for whatever price City feel like paying because Kane wants to go.
I've got no sympathy with Kane. Spurs aren't obligated to let him leave for whatever price City feel like paying because Kane wants to go.
How does that work in realty?
Are their any instances of a player who got injured close to the end of the contract and the club just letting them go? I know Carzola had a horrific injury but i'm not quite sure how that effected his exit from Arsenal.
What do you mean, how insurances work in general? Exactly the same as your own insurances. They pay an amount of money to an insurance company who then covers the salaries in case of injuries.
Both ways would imply that the player is financially compensated.
Yeah that’s a pretty ridiculous notion, particularly given the nature of sport. It’s not the players fault for the injury (obviously). But it’s also not on the players that there’s so much money in the sport and that clubs offer such money to them.
Maybe in a situation where you have a chronically injured player signing for a team on a ‘pay as you play’ basis, but then that’s at the agreement of player and club.
Maybe in a situation where you have a chronically injured player signing for a team on a ‘pay as you play’ basis, but then that’s at the agreement of player and club.
That's almost certainly unfair dismissal. If you are sick in a 'regular' job the employer has to give you reasonable time to recover. Sports clubs cannot act like businesses and then try to pretend that they are different when it comes to employment law.
Understood.
Dean Ashton?
He was also entitled to work injury compensation too: https://www.manchestereveningnews.c...lawyer-secures-compensation-for-ashton-853685
West Ham sued the FA for compensation for Dean Ashton too: https://www.ashbourneinsurance.co.u...-hammers-preparing-take-fa-court-dean-ashton/
No fecking way.
Same as insuring any other asset, they're paid to play and it they can't due to a lengthy injury, they can claim compensation.
I'm with you here. The same way a contract binds a club to compensating an injured player, it binds a player to perform for the club for the duration, unless the player and club come to an agreement.
I see it that way, but why is it totally ignored when the media decide a player should be allowed to leave? Big, bad club imprisoning a player? Yet ignoring the security it gives a player, yes a career diminishing injury is rare, but it does happen and its not picky as to who it happens to.
By who? The fans? People usually side with the smaller entity (unless there are stronger biases that overrule that)
Luckily, their opinion doesn't matter.
Aon did this or maybe still does it for Manchester United. Some young athletes also have insurance policies for themselves via their family to protect themselves in case of injury. Is a very common thing.
https://www.aon.com/industry-expertise/entertainment.jsp
I'm not sure if this fits, but Chelsea kept renewing Marco van Ginkel's contract while he was battling back from endless serious injuries. Released him earlier this summer after 7 years at the club so he could sign for PSV on a free.
They will have insurance for this, they won’t lose out financially
This guy knows the answer.
Well the fact that they got injured in service of the team I don't know how the employee could wash their hands of them. Injuries are a fact of life in football and any signing has the potential to have a career ending injury at any point in the contract. Its the risk clubs take and so they should absolutely honour the contract.
They absolutely will, their premium sky rockets and the excess gets increased to a figure that makes most future claims virtually pointless.
I used to work for a firm who did a premier league club's policy. One of the few times in my career that reading a policy was vaguely interesting!
Loyalty is a two way street, Danny Rose was loyal to Spurs for over a decade but as soon as his level dropped Levy was whoring him out to all insundry with no sense of gratitude for his service.
It's hypocritical for clubs to complain when the tables are turned, say for argument sake Kane stays and proceeds to do a Torres/Alexis nosedive Levy would then have no qualms trying to palm him off on whoever the hell would have him.
Also what is hypocritical with Levy is he is adamant Kane is worth over £150m then okay, shouldn't he then be offering wages to reflect that?
Injuries for athletes is a workplace hazard. Would be ridiculous if your employer decided not to pay you for getting injured in the workplace due to no fault of your own. That's why these clubs have insurance.
Yeah, loyalty in football has always been kind of one sided. Fans are the same. Fans are the same, happy to get rid of players who aren't meeting the standards, but get super offended if that same player outgrown the club's ambitions and wants to leave.
Kane is getting £200k a week at Spurs…. pretty much amongst the prem’s highest earners.
For context, last season only Aguero, Sterling and De Bruyne earned more at City. Aguero £230k p/w and the highest De Bruyne £360k p/w
On a related note it appears Kane can buy out his contract.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...e-transfer-webster-ruling-tottenham-man-city/
If he actually does this it would be a massive game changer and open a huge can of worms going forward.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/foot...e-transfer-webster-ruling-tottenham-man-city/
If he actually does this it would be a massive game changer and open a huge can of worms going forward.
Tbf if players respect the contracts and then leave on free transfer they get shit loads of abuse.
That's why it's weird when people compare football to their 9-5 jobs.
Every player and every club does what they think best suits them.
That article makes it seem more complex than I thought. If the rules/law states players can buy themselves out of the contract under the set criteria why would Spurs then be able to sue for additional money?