I've had a marvelous day, thanks for asking.  Why has my day been so good?  well primary school was quite enjoyable for yours truly, I ruled the playground with my skills.  and I feel like I'm back in primary school.  Why, you ask? Henry.  Forgive me for getting straight to the point, no foreplay, but reading all the journos is like being back at primary school, all the kids running to the teacher, throwing temper tantrums: 'but Miss Jacobs, he Chhheaated, I don't want to play anymore, this game is stupid' 'Miss Jacobs, Henry cheated, do something Miss Jacobs, he cchhhhheeeeeated, you have to stop him.'

Am I right though? As in my last post, the fact that he committed a foul is nothing, the press don't care, but his crime was that he committed a foul against a certain team, the underdogs, the no-hopers, the Rocky's.  At the end of they day, it was a foul.

People say Henry cheated, that what he did was calculated, deliberate, and (although this confuses me) planned before kickoff and done solely to pierce Irish hearts.  Really? no, football at international level is one of the fastest games on earth, it was a mindsnap, a silly mistake, I ref, I see this happen a lot, a player will make a handball, and say 'oh, sorry ref, didn't mean to' (again, I don't ref kickaround crap).  The fact that the ref didn't see it is why people are kicking up a fuss.  I have heard one commentator say that it was worse than longterm match fixing, and cited an (utterly inappropriate) example, I have heard others say that Henry must be banned, why, for a foul?

I saw something on The Spoiler.  Note please, the photo, Duff is cheating.  What is fundamentally different about Duff cheating and Henry cheating? Nothing, Henry committed a foul, Duff committed a foul.  Yes or No.  The difference is something happened because of Henry's foul, but they were both cheating yes?  I know some dickwad will read this and launch into vitriolic rage about how I'm a misguided child, I don't understand football, they sleep with member of my immediate family and that I'm not Irish so I don't know how it feels...

But I do, I do, Australia v Uruguay, 2001, the Uruguayans used every trick in the book to throw us off, changing dates, changing locations, changing flights, how much did you all hear about that? Did The Sun say 'The Disgrace of the South American's' no way, they didn't care, cheating again, did I get over it? Yes I did.

But the fact is, a foul is a foul, and while some fouls are worse than others, they are all breaking the laws of the game ... cheating, if you will.  When a player fouls something, basically what the ref is saying is 'OK, you've done something wrong, you've broken the laws, lets give the ball to the other team as punishment.'  But Duff and Henry both broke the laws of the game did they not?  Why is there such a fuss about Henry?

People don't recognise that any player who commits a foul, seen by the ref or not, is cheating, but Henry got away with it, so he is cheating, he has disgraced football, he is a murderer. (I've read that as well).  It's football, I don't subscribe to Shankly's view of football being more important than life and death.  Why are people kicking up such a fuss about it?  Because the press all have agendas.  I'm glad I didn't listen to TalkSport in the aftermath of the foul, but still all I see is anglophilians, peddling their filth.  All kicking up a fuss about a foul that wasn't called.  

In 1974 Ray Baartz, the goalscoring king who got Australia to our first ever World Cup, was hit with a karate chop to the throat from an opponent, it ultimately ended his career.  But he got up after a bit of treatment and scored one, and set up another.  Then another player punched him in the face, a teammate of the offender, then punched the offender in the face, so it looked like the Uruguayan player was punched by Baartz, then the Uruguayans protested so much after the offender was duly punted, the referee couldn't restart play for some time.  Ray Baartz collapsed after the game, he never played again.  Did we fuss, did we say 'no fair'?  No, we got on with the job.  Remember, this was the boy who at 19 came back to Australia, from Manchester United, even though Sir Matt Busby begged him to stay.  Do you want to know what the papers said when Baartz's career was ended?

"BAARTZ was on the receiving end of some tough treatment in Saturday's match at the Sydney Cricket Ground. He had trouble with his vision at half-time, but was determined to see the match out. Fifteen minutes into the second half, Baartz scored a magnificent goal from 25 metres, which set the Australians on their winning way."
This is what was said, about the man who never played football again.

Please people, show some sense, I beg of you, don't stoop to the same level as the filthy hacks that roam this barren place we call the world.  It's just football, Henry committed a foul, just like Duff did in that picture.  My last post is on exactly the same thing, I may send it in to those idiots on Sky's Sunday Supplement.  A spot of Perspective for you then.

Best, Goon

Please launch your vitriolic rage against me, just remember, I have a right of reply.

Well i have been much too successful to note my opinions on the internet lately, but i have finished my assignment on Bosman, take a look

In response to a landmark decision in 1995 known as the Bosman ruling the governing body of football, FIFA, implemented changes to the way the system of transferring players between clubs worked. This is known as the retain and transfer system. In changing them did FIFA merely make life fractionally better for footballers, while still restraining their movement? The European Union is built on four freedoms. Two of those freedoms were allegedly suppressed in the Bosman ruling.

 These were the freedom of movement and the freedom of services. In the treaty of Rome the freedom of movement of workers is a central strand of the treaty. The field of professional sport has been based on ‘restrictive practises that would not be tolerated in any other walk of life’ (McCutcheon, 2003). So it was inevitable that this bubble would burst and a revolution of sorts would take place in football. Over time the European Court has made a good many rulings to FIFA and sport in general, some of these rulings have frustrated UEFA, the head of football in Europe, and FIFA. Eventually the European Court agreed to respect the football business and to move on matters more related to economic policy and let sporting matters be handled by FIFA.

But FIFA has limited freedom of workers, and The European Court has stepped in, in doing this the court broke it’s agreement with FIFA and undermined the control FIFA has over football. Does the jurisdiction of football fall in the hands of FIFA or does it fall to the courts of the European Union? The same sentiment is felt when we look at the EU Treaty and the Jurisdiction that has. The Treaty controls workers, but does it have any power of purely sporting matters. The EU court has confirmed that European Community law applies to FIFA and FIFA must change their practises accordingly. But if a matter is purely for sport and creating a market free of labour hoarding, does the EU and EC law have any passage for taking control or changing FIFA’s rules and regulations? As FIFA only slightly softened their transfer rules after the Bosman ruling the question of jurisdiction comes into play. The frustrating clashes of UEFA, FIFA and the EU, as noted by McArdle (2000), pits one of the most powerful sports (thus most powerful governing body) against an increasingly powerful EU in what may become a damaging and drawn out problem. The text in question is the statute for the ‘Rules and Regulations for the status and transfer of players’ and one particular article inside that text.

Article 17 of this statute has been one of the most controversial laws ever implemented by FIFA. ‘Article 17 (5) any person subject to FIFA statues and FIFA regulations (club officials, players’ agents, players, etc) who acts in a manner designed to induce a breach of contract between Professional and club in order to facilitate the transfer of the player shall be sanctioned.’ In layman’s terms, if the manager of club ‘A’ says to the media “I want to purchase the star player of club ‘B’, he should leave his contract and play for us’ then the manager is in breach of FIFA’s statutes and regulations, and is unsettling a player or, as known in football circles, ‘tapping up the player’. There is a distinct possibility that this is restricting free market. If a worker, working for a small corporation is asked publicly to leave to work for a major company he would most likely go, and there would be nothing illegal about this. But there is to FIFA. If the club and the player are in contract, does not the player have to serve out the contract? Another of FIFA’s decisions could be illegal according to McArdle, if a player’s contract is over, then he is allowed to leave his current club, no questions asked. But if a player is under 24 the club he is moving to must pay the club he was out of contract to, a compensation fee. McArdle says that this ‘appears to be... at odds with the...EC Treaty’ (2000). We will look at the power of all the courts, the validity and power of FIFA’s statutes and regulations, and the laws governing FIFA to see if they are still restricting player movement in the EU. The Bosman Case The Bosman Case was the most radical case to ever hit the world of football, one man taking on the giants of UEFA and FIFA. It revolved around articles of the EC Treaty and transfer rules long outdated.

Case Study J.M. Bosman.

Jean-Marc Bosman was a Belgian footballer plying his trade at SA Royal Club Liegois. In 1990 his contract with RC Liegois expired. He had been offered a new contract with a 60% wage cut and as such wanted to leave after the agreed tenure with the club ended. The original contract was signed in 1986 with a monthly wage of 120000 Belgian Francs, for two years. In lieu of taking a massive wage cut, Bosman explored other avenues available for him to leave the club. He made a one year transfer to a second division French team US Dunkerque. Under the agreement if Dunkerque paid 4.8 million Belgian Francs at the end of the deal, Bosman could join them permanently. RC Liegois believed this fee to be too high for Dunkerque to pay and did not file the appropriate forms for Bosman to leave, then, under rules of the Belgian Football Association, Bosman was suspended from playing.

In 1990, Bosman opened up an action in the courts. Bosman asked for ‘an order the RC Liegois pay him a salary while he found a new club, and asked the court to prohibit the club from seeking a transfer fee for him.’(McArdle, 2000) He also requested that the case be transferred to the European Court of Justice to consider if the current rules in the Belgian retain and transfer system were a restraint of trade and blocking free movement and market. All three were granted by the Belgian court of first instance, on appeal by the Belgian Football Association the referral to the ECJ was overturned. In 1991 Bosman dragged UEFA into the legal battle for damages, UEFA as a defendant in the case for damages and separately for breach of the EC Treaty article 48, 85 and 86. His main claim was Article 48, which states that ‘Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community’ and ‘It shall entail the right...to accept offers of employment actually made’ (Treaty of Rome, 1957).

In 1992 the court of appeal upheld the decision to go to the ECJ, EUFA’s rules along with those of the Belgian transfer system were on trial and Bosman. Bosman’s case was based upon two questions, the first about contracts ending and release, the second about quotas for players in teams. Bosman was trying to erase the quota system that said that a certain number of people in a team must be ‘home-grown’. Despite EUFA arguing that they and FIFA operated under Swiss law and was therefore outside the jurisdiction of the EC, the fact was that Bosman was a Community citizen and so EC law applies to him and protects him. UEFA and the Belgian Football Association then claimed that EC law did not apply to sport, but there was precedent and Advocate General Lenz stated that ‘the activities of professional football players are in the nature of gainful employment and are therefore subject to community law’(Bosman, 1996) Lenz made reference to the Articles and their direct reference to prohibiting the type of system used by the Belgian Association.

UEFA still did not back down, saying the only the very top clubs in Europe were the ones making any sort of economic activity and that RC Liegois was just a small club side, but the Advocate General rejected this by saying that the amount of profit does not make a difference, only the fact that it was economic activity. The Advocate General had to listen to many more arguments from UEFA, but all of them were based on the fact that due to it being a sport, and it being an internal matter, Article 48 was not applicable. The Advocate General ruled that the ‘Authorities failed to satisfy the court’ (McArdle 2000) and ruled in favour of Bosman, now FIFA ‘had to put its house in order’ (Dabscheck 2002).

The Jurisdiction of Football is a very volatile subject, football is a massive business, records show that Roman Abramovich, the owner of the Chelsea Football Club, has invested (or lent – if he will want the money back is a shady area) £500,000,000 into the club. Managers of clubs are reportedly being told that they have a ‘blank cheque’ for transferring players to the club and the current, again reported, highest wage is to Manchester City Football Club player Robinho who is paid £160,000 per week. Money is important, so the body that legally can control all the entities with the money has a big responsibility. After 1995 the relationship between UEFA and the EU cooled. We are looking effectively at FIFA’s power over the game being diminished. In Walrave and Koch v Association Union Cycliste International the ECJ affirmed (and again in Bosman) that economic factors in sport were under the jurisdiction of the ECJ.

But in Bosman, Advocate General Lenz, in his decision said: ‘The rules on foreign players restrict the possibilities for the individual clubs to compete with each other by engaging players’ (Bosman 1995:262) This is a purely sporting decision, and I cannot see any direct economic footprint coming from this. So FIFA may have illegal rules, and Advocate General Lenz may partially be acting outside his jurisdiction. ‘The reform of FIFA rules governing international transfers’ was released and shown to the European Parliament in 2001, it still had compensation for players out of contract with clubs: Compensation for training and education will be payable between the ages of 12 and 23.

When a player signs his first professional contract compensation shall be payable to the club responsible for his education and training. Such compensation will be payable every time the player is transferred up to the age of 23. If we examine the legality of this. Training and education compensation, that is fair enough, but when we take into account that defenders on average peak around the age of 28, and goalkeepers even later, then why 23? This could be in breach of Article 39 (formerly 48) subsection 2 that states, such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the member states as regards employment...and other conditions of work and employment. Using the age of 23 is discrimination, but is it an economic policy? As it acts for profit it is. If 23 is the figure at which the clubs is to have supposed to have received their money back from any player training, they should count the number of goalkeepers who are under 24 and first choice at their English Premier League clubs, there are none. So how could clubs conceivably get their training and education expenditure back, at the age of 23?

Another question we may ask; why is it to all clubs the player is transferred to, if he is transferred in the offseason transfer window then transferred again in the summer window, how much have they learned in 6 months? The European Court of Justice handed down the Bosman ruling and almost immediately shockwaves were felt throughout Europe and the main football leagues. Both good and bad came from the Bosman ruling. The problem of labour hoarding came in. Employment in football is based on supply and demand. There have been major fluctuations in transfer fees during times of lowered supply. But as a consequence of Bosman, ‘skilled and relatively cheap labour from ‘mainland’ Europe’ (Dabscheck, 2002) flooded the market. Young players from Europe started to notice the discrepancy between the wages of players in the big four leagues of England, Spain, Italy and Germany and their own. As such clubs have started stockpiling players, FIFA and UEFA launched a criticism against Bosman and how the number and skill of young players would decline due to not being able to receive a fee from them moving on to a big club, who sign young players on relatively low, but long contracts. FIFA attempted to achieve ‘Football Solidarity’ with the 2001 transfer regulations, but they have just set up another potential clash with the ECJ.

In the 2001 transfer regulations, FIFA took another step that could be seen, not in violation of the Treaty of Rome, but attempting to take football out of the hands of the ECJ. FIFA permitted players to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to settle grievances. They were given allowances to go to the CAS for training fees, transfers and disciplinary measures. This is a step by FIFA to take control of the game. Even though the CAS states that it attempts to limit the power of sporting bodies, the power of the EJC is far greater. With the CAS in charge the revolution and subsequent scramble for territory of Bosman will be unlikely to happen again. The potential clash I spoke of in the last paragraph now looks to be less severe. A challenge at the CAS of Galatasaray SK v Franck Ribery & Olympique Marseille of breach of contract was simply ruled in favour of the defendant. There were no changes to FIFA’s regulations and no shake up of the transfer system.

The case was another of restraint of trade due to an unfair contract. The CAS ensures that FIFA’s control over the game is not threatened and they control the game the way they want. The CAS ruled that the contract signed by Ribery was unfair, when the contract signed was actually just extreme interpretation of FIFA’s statutes. The contract stated that Ribery nor any party connected with him could speak to another club regarding a transfer, this is consistent with FIFA Article 17 (5). So the CAS ruled that FIFA was guilty of a restraint of trade, but by handing power first to its own disputes resolution chamber and the CAS, FIFA took the ECJ out of the equation and as such strengthened their hold on the game, because of the contracts extreme compensation clauses, the ECJ would have had the right to step in and again strike FIFA down another notch in their control of the game, the CAS did not do that, it looks like FIFA’s idea of using the CAS has become its own reward.

A number of questions have been raised in this Brief. Do FIFA or the ECJ have final say over football, it would seem the ECJ, but FIFA are keen to keep them away after Bosman, when the ECJ ruled on sporting matters. So FIFA have enlisted the use of the CAS to rule of further disputes who will not/cannot make FIFA change their rules and regulations as FIFA got the CAS operating under Swiss law, to keep their rules and regulations that are against the 4 freedoms, and Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome, and at the end of the day, keep their control of the game of football.

FIFA must change their rules and regulations immediately, or risk further action against them in the court. The European Court of Justice must apologise to FIFA for improper use of power in 1996. FIFA must replace the CAS as the court for disputes. FIFA have to work with the ECJ, and not against them to make sure we do not have ugly clashes between these bodies. Finally FIFA must withdraw its use of Swiss law, because the mass use of FIFA law is in European Communities countries. These must be followed to avoid a clash of powers that may see FIFA removed or a great amount of its power taken away.