coppercanuck Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 With the NHL lockout in full, discussions of sports economics are in full swing. I wanted to make sure that I understand the model soccer uses. Please correct me if I am wrong, I don't pretend to understand everything. In most leagues outside of North America the free market economy rules. Meaning there are no drafts, salary caps, revenue sharing, player unions, collective barganing, etc. A player is owned by the club and his contract can be sold to another club. The price payed between clubs for a player is a transfer fee. I assume the contract between the player and the club is not disclosed most of the time. The club structure reached down into youth teams. Are these players all signed to contracts? How young can they be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachesl Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I believe that you basically have it right. Outside of the American leagues, there are no drafts. The European system is a bit different than elsewhere because of the late 1995 ruling that says that once a contract runs out, the player is free to recontract with any club (the ruling that quotas or restrictions against players from other EU countries were illegal). The only exception to this is that if a club develops a youth player, they are entitled to some compensation from a club that recontracts that player. Some leagues, such as Spain, have a quota (only 3 allowed I think) against non-EU players, and there are practical immigration law restrictions such as in Britain. There are no resrtictions as to how young the players are that sign. Of course, it is only the parents that sign, and the leagues honour these contracts, although they may be challenged in the EU soon. Thus if a 16 year old Roney had wanted to leave Everton at that age when he reached 18, he could have challenged the legality of the contract booth before he turned 18 and it's continuence after, and be successful, but it would be bucking the league system. Most leagues out of the EU and the US still have the old "once you sign, you are their's for life" system, which is a big business in places like South America. Hoewever, some countries have taken some initial steps to start to free the players. For instance, Pele, when he was Minister of Sport in Brazil, brought in a law that's supposed to kick in a year or two that frees a player after so many years on a contract, but I don't have the details. Usually the wage paid for player, and any transfer fee or transfer bonus to the player, is public, at least in the EU. This is mainly because the player's associations want them open, just like the NHLPA does, so there are not secret agreements. They rightly think that the more open it is, the less the clubs can make deals that would reduce the overall marketability of all players. In places like Asia, they are often kept secret. Also, it is to the agents' advantage to keep this open, and I believe that they have access to all contracts, which are suposed to be filed with FIFA in Zurich. I may be wrong on some details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 I would add, as it relates to professional hockey in Canada, the free market transfer system combined with the divisional relegation/promotion system would be by far the best for fans of the game. Can you Vancouver fans imagine a Canucks/Blazers (or Millionaires) derby at the Coliseum? Or the TML coming to Saskatoon in league cup play? It would be amazing. It's also ironic that we often call Europeans communists given the NFL model all Americans think is so great. Down with the franchise I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I am not so sure that, in principle, that system was any different that what the NHL used to have up until the late 60's. There was a time, prior to when the draft was instituted, when NHL team used to own junior clubs and would sign young promising teenagers and assign them to their junior team. For example, St Catherines-Chicago; Verdun-Montreal; St.Mike-Toronto; Oshawa-Boston. Bobby Orr was never drafted in the NHL. Neither was Marcel Dionne Although in North america, you could never sell a contract for money. As a result compensation must be in the form of players but that is really a technicality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 quote:Originally posted by Free kick I am not so sure that, in principle, that system was any different that what the NHL used to have up until the late 60's. There was a time, prior to when the draft was instituted, when NHL team used to own junior clubs and would sign young promising teenagers and assign them to their junior team. For example, St Catherines-Chicago; Verdun-Montreal; St.Mike-Toronto; Oshawa-Boston. Bobby Orr was never drafted in the NHL. Neither was Marcel Dionne Although in North america, you could never sell a contract for money. As a result compensation must be in the form of players but that is really a technicality. Agreed on the first paragraph. We also had a club nicknamed Wanderers. But why can't you sell a contract for money? Legislation? What about the 10m for Gretzky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone Agreed on the first paragraph. We also had a club nicknamed Wanderers. But why can't you sell a contract for money? Legislation? What about the 10m for Gretzky? I think that its really the internal rules of the leagues. They want to make it appear to the fans that transactions are for teh benefit of both teams and that there is no financial motive behind any deal. Which is really BS when you think about it. The Expos would have been better off getting cold cash for many of the star players they lost. What they often got instaed in return was able bodies who are the equivalent of a rosin bag and pine tar. When Glen Sather was in Edm, he alluded to this fact, stating that maybe clubs like teh oilers would be better getting transfer fees instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argh1 Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I'm reminded of the old joke about a star NHL player being traded for a dozen hockey sticks and a water bottle or as they call it " future considerations " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Rather than just modify my post above, I should point out that I made an error in stating that Marcel Dionne wasn't selected in a draft. He was of course taken second after Guy Lafleur in the early years of the draft. But still, there was no draft for players who came into the league in the era of Bobby Hull, delveccio, Howe, keon etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youllneverwalkalone Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 I realize the NHL doesn't like the appearance of transfer fees (I believe there is a 2m limit) but this is really the point. The NHL is not a free market and maybe it should be. If it's a gate driven business, that should be great for Canada. I just thought Free Kick was a lawyer or something and knew of some strange labour law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.