Jump to content

20th anniversary of the Bosman ruling


DJ_Villain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, today marks the 20th year since relatively unknown Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman won a court case that turned football on its head and gave power to the players and their agents.
I was wondering on how everybody sees this.

Do you think it was good for the game? or, like myself, do you believe it has caused the gulf between clubs due to smaller clubs not being able to get what they want from the sides of bigger stature?

Thoughts please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But inevitable.  If Bosman hadn't gone to court then somebody else will have, especially when footballers started seeing how much money was potentially on the table following subscription TV really starting to become a thing in the late 80s/early 90s.  Bosman was a catalyst for the current situation but so many rules of the game have been changed to allow bigger clubs to exert more dominance over the game than Bosman taking down an illegal working practice did. Clubs like Real Madrid, Barcelona and Manchester City can afford to pay the bills you need to pay to be at the top of the game these days but it's been facilitated by relaxations on the size of matchday squads allowing the super rich not only to stockpile the best talent but to keep them happy too.  Too many excellent players are happy just to be squad members at the biggest clubs, who cares if you only get 20 minutes as a sub here and there (usually when you are 3-0 up at home to Norwich or something) when it pays £100k a week, gets you into the Libertine club in Mayfair and a few winners medals that you didn't even have to do very much to earn? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

is right...

its a right and fair rule but one that has killed football

needed other rules brought in at the same time, wage cap would never work, proper squad registration and squad caps was the way forward (and still is IMO) rev is right, its not yaya toure on £250k a week thats ended football, its the likes of sinclair playing 2 games a year whilst earning £5m a year

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

is right...

its a right and fair rule but one that has killed football

needed other rules brought in at the same time, wage cap would never work, proper squad registration and squad caps was the way forward (and still is IMO) rev is right, its not yaya toure on £250k a week thats ended football, its the likes of sinclair playing 2 games a year whilst earning £5m a year

I don't understand the distinction. Exactly the same process has resulted in these two outcomes, and it's impossible to have one without the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I don't understand the distinction. Exactly the same process has resulted in these two outcomes, and it's impossible to have one without the other. 

think he means the good players deserve the money but the fact shit players are making brilliant money as how football has gone mad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zatman said:

think he means the good players deserve the money but the fact shit players are making brilliant money as how football has gone mad

You literally can't have one without the other. Players are assets, and clubs are businesses. Players get injured, so the only way to 'protect' your million pound a month investment in Yaya Toure is to have a £250k/month investment in a capable backup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that lots of terrific footballers don't actually play a whole lot of football these days. I have no issue with players getting what they're worth or with elite footballers getting silly money, but when very good footballers are being paid silly money to be break glass in case of emergency bit part players, it's a bit of a disgrace.

Maybe if players got paid on minutely rate, club football would be very different.

Don't even get me started on the likes of Chelsea having 35 players out on loan. What a ridiculous situation that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ThunderPower_14 said:

The issue is that lots of terrific footballers don't actually play a whole lot of football these days. I have no issue with players getting what they're worth or with elite footballers getting silly money, but when very good footballers are being paid silly money to be break glass in case of emergency bit part players, it's a bit of a disgrace.

Maybe if players got paid on minutely rate, club football would be very different.

Don't even get me started on the likes of Chelsea having 35 players out on loan. What a ridiculous situation that is.

Well, appearance fees have always been bonuses for many players. I think it would probably help a little in driving good backups away from top clubs' benches, but maybe less than we think - after all, maybe Fabian Snake just negotiates an absolutely enormous pounds/minute rate on the implicit understanding that he'll never be a regular starter. ATEOTD the clubs with the most money will do whatever it takes to have the best squad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

You literally can't have one without the other. Players are assets, and clubs are businesses. Players get injured, so the only way to 'protect' your million pound a month investment in Yaya Toure is to have a £250k/month investment in a capable backup. 

they arent having £250k a month for capable back ups though are they? they are paying £400k a month + for players who then arent registered in the 25 man squad

chelsea are getting close to having £250k a month 18 year olds who are picking their reserves and vitesse over first team football at a mid table prem team, i think the last time i looked they had around 6 U21 players on £30k a week and more who had never kicked a ball for them

the rules need adjusting now to stop stockpiling of young players on big contracts which is inflating wages across the league (amongst other things) if anything because of FFP its getting worse rather than better because they are assets in an ever inflating market

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clubs who finish higher up the table should be restricted by how many players they can purchase in a transfer window without some players leaving.

For instance, if you win the league, you are only allowed to purchase 3 players - however, you can also purchase any players to replace ones that have left in that transfer window.

This would mean clubs would make it much harder to stockpile players who could not be registered for a squad place in a season

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, DJ_Villain said:

Clubs who finish higher up the table should be restricted by how many players they can purchase in a transfer window without some players leaving.

For instance, if you win the league, you are only allowed to purchase 3 players - however, you can also purchase any players to replace ones that have left in that transfer window.

This would mean clubs would make it much harder to stockpile players who could not be registered for a squad place in a season

I like this idea. I'll vote for you if your run for FIFA President.

Was just thinking how many good Bosman signings have we made? Not many, I can think of. I'm still gutted about Luc Nilis too. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
23 hours ago, Zatman said:

I think some teams are trying bring in performance contracts now, i saw Aberdeen was one that players would get more with appearances etc.

they are 2nd in league so probably working

Problem with that is the teams that don't do that will then have the advantage. Why would a player go for a contract at Club A where he has to perform to a high level to get 200k a week, when he could go to club B and be guaranteed 200k a week.

Unless Club A is Real Madrid and club B is, I dunno, Valencia (i.e. Club A has way more positives that just money going for it) I don't see why the players would choose club A.

So Club B would always have the advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter

You're all thinking of this from the club or the fans point of view. From the players point of view it is only fair that they are able to find themselves a new club before they stop receiving a salary from the current one.

20 years ago money was not what it is now. I think there would be a case, at the top level at least, that the point at which a contracted player can talk to other clubs is less that the current 6 months. Maybe 6 weeks, and this would mean less disruption and 'head turning' of players at the halfway point of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
Â