The Ga?l Kakuta controversy highlights one of the most controversial issues on the agenda at Uefa and Fifa: the loophole that allows clubs to sign youngsters from other nations the minute they turn 16, with little compensation going to the clubs that trained them and developed them as footballers.
European law prevents players from signing formal contracts tying them to clubs before their 16th birthday. This means that, regardless of how long a club may have had a player on their books as a boy (and regardless of the resources they spent on him), they are in danger of losing him to another team when he turns 16.
The best they can do is hope that he will sign the contract placed in front of him. But the risk of another club swooping in and offering a better deal is always present.
That, effectively is the issue, though it is complicated by the fact that different nations are governed by different rules and that sporting jurisdiction is sometimes at odds with employment law. Either way, clubs feel they are vulnerable and, indeed, over the past decade, hundreds of footballers have jumped ship by exploiting this loophole. Uefa is under tremendous pressure to remedy the situation and Michel Platini, the Uefa president, has made this a priority.
But, because transfers are regulated by Fifa, jurisdiction for such matters lies with Sepp Blatter, Platini’s counterpart in Zurich.
Advertisement
There has been a veritable boom in such signings in the past few years, particularly in the Premier League. What began with isolated cases such as Sam Dalla Bona, who moved from Atalanta to Chelsea in 1998, has mushroomed to the point that now top English clubs will have half a dozen or so such players on their books.
The most famous is Cesc Fàbregas, who moved from Barcelona to Arsenal when he turned 16, and it may be that his success has persuaded countless other teams to take the plunge.
Clubs in Italy, Spain and France may be among those who complain the loudest, but such practices happen in every top European league. Ultimately, it’s as much about money as it is about control.
What rankles the clubs who lose players is that obtaining compensation is a difficult and uncertain process. Unlike traditional transfers, it’s not a matter of agreeing a fee because, depending on which jurisdiction is used, there usually isn’t one to pay (or, if there is, the sum is tiny). From the clubs’ perspective, they spend huge amounts of money to develop the players and lose them for a pittance because, by the time they are allowed to offer a binding contract, the player will have been spotted by dozens of clubs.
Some nations, such as France, have tried to build safeguards into the system, creating “pre-contracts” that players can agree before they turn 16. Yet the degree to which these pre-contracts have any kind of legal validity on a European scale is disputed, as is the ease with which they can unilaterally be rescinded. Indeed, this is one of the issues in the Kakuta case with Lens and Chelsea.
Advertisement
The other issue - which also reared its head in the Kakuta story - is when and how foreign clubs approach these players and who they talk to. Theoretically, they can offer a contract only after the player’s 16th birthday and they are not supposed to have contact with the player before that date.
In practice, however, it’s difficult to believe that when a player signs with a foreign club immediately after turning 16, he hasn’t had any contact with them before his birthday. Agents and intermediaries are often involved, raising the ever-present spectre that money might have illegally changed hands as well.
Football’s governing bodies have adopted a two-track strategy to deal with the issue. On the one hand, for some time now, they have been studying legal mechanisms to remedy the situation. On the other hand, the Kakuta case is evidence that they are adopting a much harder line via existing legal mechanisms.
What appears certain, however, is that this issue won’t disappear until football gives itself clear and transparent rules.