Soccer-FIFPro complaint against the transfer system

BRUSSELS, Sept 18 (Reuters) - Factbox on the legal complaint which was lodged by the world players' union FIFPro at the European Commission (EC) on Friday against the football transfer system. BACKGROUND * FIFPro is the world players' union, based in the Netherlands, which represents about 65,000 professional players worldwide through its national affiliates. It is represented on some standing committees at soccer's world governing body FIFA and the European ruling body UEFA, although it does not have a place on the executive committee of either organisation. Its president is Frenchman Philippe Piat. * FIFPro lodged its complaint with the EC in Brussels. It argues that the transfer system, in which players are traded by clubs for fees that can reach tens of millions of euros, infringes European competition law. * The complaint is against FIFA, which governs the transfer regulations worldwide through its Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The system has existed since 2001 and follows an informal agreement between FIFA, UEFA and the EC. WHY IS FIFPRO GOING TO COURT? * FIFPro argues that the current system creates a competitive imbalance as only the biggest clubs can afford the transfer fees for the top players. It says it leads to commercial exploitation of the trade by agents, impedes the free movement of players, causes speculative management of clubs and creates conditions for the trafficking of minors. * Another grievance is that even when players are not paid by their clubs, they have to wait 90 days before they can claim just cause. They could also face a lengthy procedure through FIFA's dispute resolution chamber. FIFPro wants unpaid players to be allowed to leave after 30 days and change club without waiting for a new transfer window. * FIFPro says it wants to encourage respect of contract and it wants penalties for early termination to be the same for players and clubs. It also wants to create quality jobs for players. * FIFPro argues it is unfair that a player's compensation is calculated on the basis of his "market value" as this itself is set by the clubs. In some cases, such as that of the Brazilian player Matuzalem, this can lead to a player being ordered to pay compensation equivalent to several years' salary. PREVIOUS LANDMARK CASES * The Bosman case. In 1995, the Belgian player Jean-Marc Bosman filed a lawsuit at the European Court of Justice when he was prevented from leaving RFC Liege to join French club Dunkerque even though he was out of contract. The court ruled that the transfer system placed a restriction on the free movement of workers and that players should be free to leave at the end of their contract without a fee being paid. * In 2006, Andy Webster broke his contract with Scottish club Hearts to join Wigan Athletic in England. FIFA imposed a sanction of 625,000 pounds ($974,312) on the player while Hearts asked the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) to award 4.6 million pounds in recognition of the club's estimated value of the player. However, CAS ordered Webster and Wigan to pay Hearts a reduced fine of 150,000 pounds. FIFA said the decision was damaging for the sport and that it threatened contractual stability. It said that small clubs could suffer a more aggressive approach towards their players as a result. * In 2007, Matuzalem terminated his contract with Ukrainian side Shakhtar Donetsk and joined Spain's Real Zaragoza after the clubs failed to negotiate a transfer fee. FIFA initially ruled that Zaragoza and Matuzalem were jointly liable to pay 6.8 million euros ($7.78 million)in compensation to Shakhtar for unilateral breach of contract. The Ukrainian club, however, appealed to CAS which raised the amount to 11.8 million euros. The CAS decision took into account the market value of the player to his former club, his salary, the difficulty he placed them in with the timing of his departure and deducted the salary Shakhtar would not have to pay him. FIFA argued that the decision supported contractual stability and did "not give a free pass to unilaterally breach a contract." FIFPro argued that Matuzalem had been ordered to pay the equivalent of 10 years' salary and that basing compensation on the player's market value leads to uncertain and disproportionate compensation. ($1 = 0.6415 pounds) ($1 = 0.8746 euros) (Compiled by Brian Homewood; Editing by Ken Ferris)