Manchester City Thread

just some quick pointers for u guys. :))
1 - there's no such thing as EU labour law (sadly). we only have a few vague regulations and directives on the subject, but there's no real legislation (we're gonna get there eventually, but it's still too soon). what comes into play here is no law, but the TFEU (treaty on the functioning of the EU). its consolidated version dates back to 2007 (or 2009... can't really remember right now), but, in its original version, it was one of the 2 founding treaties.

2 - the treaty is binding in england and it applies to all eu citizens, regardless of their occupation (plummers, lawyers, doctors, secretaries or professional athletes).

3 - the relevant article here is article 18 (which prohibits any discrimination based on nationality).
mind u, i don't know what "homegrown" means by FA regulations, but if it has any relation with the player's nationality (as the expression "homegrown" seems to suggest), then yes, such rule would be in violation of the treaty.

4 - that means that if a player, at any time (tomorrow, next year, or 20 years from today), were to file an appeal against such rule, the european court of justice would most definitely decide in his favour and force the FA to repeal such rule.

5 - all professional sport federations which operate inside the EU are bound to abide by all EU regulations, directives and the treaties.
beachryan said:
I'm fairly sure UEFA can do what they want with regards to CL rules. It's a private competition by invitation. It's not an employer - the clubs are. I can't see how EU would be able to argue against anything UEFA did.
Click to expand...
the fact that uefa hosts a private competition and the fact that it's not an employer is irrelevant. the TFEU applies to all EU citizens residing in EU territory. So whether the citizen's complaint is against a national football federation, an international football federation (such as uefa) an employer or a book club, it makes absolutely no difference.
the european court of justice could litteraly stop the champions league (by issuing a ruling that prohibits EU countries from hosting CL football matches until a certain UEFA rule is repealed or a restriction is lifted)... and if u think uefa is too big to be trifled with, the court already did much heavier stuff against giants such as microsoft, and apple.

6 - the french professional skating federation introduced a new regulation last june, according to which the clubs can only have 3 foreign athletes in their roster. an italian athlete (who was playing for a french club) threatened to file a complaint and the federetion immediately repealed the regulation. he didn't even have to file the complaint, just the threat was enough to persuade the federation (because the federation lawyers realised they would have lost in court).

7 - all labour laws (both national laws and EU regulations) apply to professional football. the last stronghold of football's autonomy was anti-mobbing law and even that fell a couple of years ago (courtesy of a ruling of the european court of justice).
 
Last edited:
I don't think homegrown rules has violate the EU laws. It's not about nationality, it's about where the players have trained from young age. Fabregas is classified as homegrown player because he's trained in Arsenal from young age, eventhough he's Spanish.
 
@lo zio: Agree with you except on point 5. UEFA as any International organization has to respect EU law and principles within a EU country. However, they can impose, within their own competitions (CL, EL, etc.) a rule that favour nationals over foreigners, even against other member-states citizens. For example, having 5 nationals quota on the CL squad is not a violation of the freedom of movement of people since UEFA isn't ruled by definition by EU laws. However, if they imposed that all teams must have at least 5 nationals on their CL squad, they are forcing a club from a EU country to have to favour nationals over member-states citizens and that is forbidden by the TFEU. The club is forced to establish a labour relation with 5 players, with a possible detriment of others member-states citizens.

kornetbeef said:
I don't think homegrown rules has violate the EU laws. It's not about nationality, it's about where the players have trained from young age. Fabregas is classified as homegrown player because he's trained in Arsenal from young age, eventhough he's Spanish.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the problem lays in this: Is a British favoured over a member-state citizen? Using an example I've before: an Englishman that made all his youth development outside the British Isles count as home-grown player or not? If yes, then the rule is in violation of the EU treaty, since he favours nationals, and therefore it is a discriminatory rule based on the nationality of the player.
 
kornetbeef said:
I don't think homegrown rules has violate the EU laws. It's not about nationality, it's about where the players have trained from young age. Fabregas is classified as homegrown player because he's trained in Arsenal from young age, eventhough he's Spanish.
Click to expand...

i see. if that's the case, then yes, there's no violation at all. however when the application of such rules exceeds its purpose, there's room for the opening of an infringment procedure by EU. the spanish and italian basket federations are facing this situation right now. http://www.e-comlaw.com/world-sports-law-report/article_template.asp?ID=1644&Search=Yes&txtsearch=club
however, given how many foreign players play for english clubs, the FA has nothing to worry about. :))
andy18cruz said:
.... However, they can impose, within their own competitions (CL, EL, etc.) a rule that favour nationals over foreigners, even against other member-states citizens. For example, having 5 nationals quota on the CL squad is not a violation of the freedom of movement of people since UEFA isn't ruled by definition by EU laws
Click to expand...
that's not how it works mate. like i said, any federation operating inside eu territory is bound by EU law, Uefa included.
infact the uefa "homegrown players" rule already went under EU scrutiny (and passed the test). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-807_en.htm
if uefa were to raise their quotas in future, they could easily face an infringment procedure.
 
Interesting, what about the non-EU countries involved in the CL?

Technically the homegrown thing clearly is biased towards home-nations players - it's based on years within an academy system in the UK. So technically players like Fabregas/Petrucci/etc would qualify but they're the small exception rather than the rule.

I'm really surprised that all labour laws extend completely to sport. Things like Suarez's ban, career-ending injuries and what not don't tend to be dealt with as they would in any other workplace.
 
beachryan said:
Good on City: http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news/2014/July/Club-statement-22-July-2014

Don't put up with that crap. Hope they pursue it too.

@ andy18cruz - I'm really not sure on that. There are policies in football that you couldn't extend to other workplaces. Plus, there already is a 'homegrown' rule where foreigners aren't treated the same as English players.

But I'm not a lawyer, so will leave it be.
Click to expand...

Yea, if more teams did this maybe UEFA would do more than just hand out penny fines
 
lo zio said:
that's not how it works mate. like i said, any federation operating inside eu territory is bound by EU law, Uefa included.
infact the uefa "homegrown players" rule already went under EU scrutiny (and passed the test). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-08-807_en.htm
if uefa were to raise their quotas in future, they could easily face an infringment procedure.
Click to expand...
Of course they are bound by EU law within their "territory", but that does not mean that the practise is discriminatory in itself. I was talking of a extra quota for nationals (a real one, like the 24-28 spots or something on those lines) besides the home-grown quota, who could be viewed as non-discriminatory since may help the develop the Nationals sides, which are a pursuit of UEFA as well as simple youth development.

One thing is to say you need to have x number of nationals, other is there’s quota that can be filled only by nationals. Considering that does not affect the normal build of a team. Otherwise could let to an indirect discriminatory practise.

This is a complex matter and even this example may not be in conformity with EU law.
 
17 yr old Kelechi Iheanacho plays for us tonight. Supposed to be a 'wonder kid' as they say in FM. Was player of the tournament in the u17 WC last year. Looking forward to seeing him in action
 
andy18cruz said:
Yes, I'm aware of that. But the problem lays in this: Is a British favoured over a member-state citizen? Using an example I've before: an Englishman that made all his youth development outside the British Isles count as home-grown player or not? If yes, then the rule is in violation of the EU treaty, since he favours nationals, and therefore it is a discriminatory rule based on the nationality of the player.
Click to expand...
As far as i understand, if he's classified as HGP in the country he's trained at, then he can't be classified as HGP in England, eventhough he's English.

I've read this article: http://www.danielgeey.com/is-the-home-grown-player-rule-fit-for-purpose/

"Although Fabregas qualified as an English HGP he now cannot be placed in one of the HGP positions in the Barcelona squad submission to UEFA even though he was born in Spain and plays for the Spanish national team. As he trained with Arsenal during the relevant qualification period, his national eligibility under the UEFA HGPR becomes somewhat distorted."
Click to expand...
 
beachryan said:
I'm really surprised that all labour laws extend completely to sport. Things like Suarez's ban, career-ending injuries and what not don't tend to be dealt with as they would in any other workplace.
Click to expand...

the national and international federations always try to avoid any sort of external interference, for basically 2 reasons.
1- they're allergic to the idea of being ruled by anyone other than themselves (or their sponsors). their arrogant view of their world leads them to believe that laws, regulations and statutes shouldn't apply to them (but this is not how the law works in a liberal democracy, of course).
2- court justice requires long times that their market simply can't afford.

this is why all players contracts (aswell as the contracts between the clubs and the federations) contain an arbitration clause, which requires the players (and the clubs) to solve their disputes outside of the courts.
the general idea is that the economic advantages for all parties involved (clubs and players) are so high that they should accept a limitation of their constitutional rights without making a fuss. the players and the clubs (almost) always respect such clauses, and deal with their issues "internally" and "by their own rules".

however an arbitration clause still remains nothing more than a clause in a contract, and so the parties can still decide to infringe it (as long as they're ok with paying the forfeit).

practical example: clubs often recurr to dirty strategies to force a player to sign a contract renewal, like putting him "fuori-rosa" (that's an italian expression which can be translated as "putting a player off squad"... basically u ostracize a player, marginalize him, by not only refusing to line him up in the matches, but also by forcing him to train separately from the rest of the squad.... or to not train at all). the players usually prefere to solve such disputes by compromising, rather than going to war with the club and the federation by filing a lawsuit.

lazio did it with pandev a few years ago. he refused to sign a contract renewal, so they put him off-squad and didn't even allow him to train inside the club's facilities.
pandev however decided he had enough of this bullshit and so he violated the arbitration clause and sued the club for mobbing.
he obviously had to pay a forfeit, but he won in court. the court established that, whereas the clubs are free to decide which player to line up in competitive matches, they cannot prevent a player from training in the club facilities, as this puts the player in a position where he can't even offer the performance he's payed to deliver.

the pandev-lazio affaire offers a perfect example of the relations between football and labour law. the federations may try as hard as they want to keep football outside of the law. but if a citizen decides he wants justice in court, there's nothing they can do to stop him.
because, at the end of the day, football players sign contracts like everyone else.... and they are granted the same constitutional rights that any other worker gets. :))

sorry for the small off topic Godotelli, but i didn't wanna leave ryan's question unanswered and i didn't wanna reply to him via pm, as i thought someone else might be find this subject interesting. ;)
 
Last edited:
lo zio said:
practical example: clubs often recurr to dirty strategies to force a player to sign a contract renewal, like putting him "fuori-rosa" (that's an italian expression which can be translated as "putting a player off squad"... basically u ostracize a player, marginalize him, by not only refusing to line him up in the matches, but also by forcing him to train separately from the rest of the squad.... or to not train at all). the players usually prefere to solve such disputes by compromising, rather than going to war with the club and the federation by filing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

This is what happened to Jean-Marc Bosman, he decided to start a lawsuit and the rest is history...

I wonder why players don't often start lawsuits against some of the more medieval football rules...

Perhaps the answer is also in the example of Jean-marc Bosman: his lawsuits was a revolution for all football players except for himself...

Players started a few halfhearted testimonial matches for him (well at least one), but in the end it didn't really help him. In an age were players are millionaires, the man who all started it is in need of money...
 
Dude! :CONFUSE:

mKgqCxa.jpg
 
Mangala, Fernando, Sagna, Caballero, Zuculini and Lampard for 49m

2.5m for Barry (a free agent) and a possible 13.25m for Rodwell?

Txiki>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marwood

Sagna takes number 3
BuR0ETiIcAA3wJD.jpg:large


BuR3AmOIgAAEm8q.jpg
 
Last edited:
definitely not for Arsenal, I wish though.

Also for United either, maybe Chelsea, but not so sure it comes any where near City.

The depth for Man City is frightening.
 
Godotelli said:
You could probably do the same for Chelsea, Utd and even Arsenal (if you play a 3-6-1 formation anyway)
Click to expand...

nah, nowhere in the league is near that depth quality.

United have areas like defence and midfield to worry about, we're a bit short on D as well and we have a major attack problem.

Arsenal shouldn't even be mentioned, the only area where they're covered is their mid and that's not nearly enough with all their history of injury prone players
 
ATM we're the best balanced. All the other 3 teams have parts of the squad which are over/understocked. We'll see what the squads are like come deadline day

Who is going to be CFC's backup LB btw?


BuS7nMhCQAAZSvn.jpg
 
Last edited:
Godotelli said:
... Who is going to be CFC's backup LB btw?...
Click to expand...

ATM there's only Dave, he'll be the cover for both sides as Bane and Filipe are set to start, but I'm sure he'll gradually take back his starting position like he did last year. There is also Aké who could play there, like Zouma who can be deployed on the right.
 
Lampard arrived at City today and says he's settled in well, adding "I recognise many of the fans already, from the time they supported Chelsea."

:LMAO:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom