edwin_price
Well-known Exeweb poster
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2005
- Messages
- 6,456
Because the dynamics of football are completely different from other trades. Footballers are assets to clubs in a different way to staff being assets in 'normal' trades, and the way footballers are invested in by clubs is also very different.Why should footballers be treated any differently edwin than any other trades people, contract = obligation,non contract = non obligation.
You don't get insurance companies hiring kids aged 13 and investing in their development years before they can become an insurance broker, do you? Football clubs are always gambling on players 'for the future' with the idea that they will contribute literally nothing to the club for a year or two.
If you had a situation where, for example, there were no transfer fees... players just had to give a months notice, like in most trades, you would find the investment that clubs were prepared to make in young players dissapears very rapidly.
Put simply, investment in coaching players relies on the idea of a player as an asset. This can only be the case if their freedom to switch employers is restricted. It is restricted a lot more than in most trades, but in my opinion, the Bosman ruling has not been a positive for football. Maybe this isn't the best thread to discuss this on though, as we're going off topic.