Cyle Larin

[Unnamed Trialist]

12 minutes ago, Obinna said:

The owners are Brazilian aren't they? Perhaps he was in their network and nothing more...

Sorry, just reflecting on the huge financial mess the whole Neymar empire is, with his father one of the worst. 

Are people aware that the president of Barça who signed Neymar is in prison right now? IMO, deservedly.

[nolando]

16 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

So I have been trying to read up on this, here it goes, very hack but what seems to be the situation.

FIFA does not recognize unilateral options on contracts unless they fulfil a number of criteria, including: an increase in salary (an option cannot be a simple extension, it has to clearly benefit the player as well as the club, and perhaps has to also compensate a previously overly-low contract as well); previous knowledge of the clauses on the part of the player (perhaps not Camilo's case, apparently Larin did have knowledge of this); neither of the parts being put in a position where they are defenseless (in Larin's case, he could argue he signed that contract when he was very young, as this is a factor in giving a player wishing to leave certain negotiating advantage. Plus the option has to be exercised in a reasonable time period, there can't be a wait.

The reason that MLS has not taken this to court against FIFA, is that if they lose that could set a precedent across the board in MLS, wiping out all unilateral clauses. So the risk is too high, they prefer to fight it out case by case. 

Finally, the attitude of the player is important. If he continues to train with his club, and acts like his contract is extended, they it could be decided the option is valid. It seems then, oddly enough, that FIFA considers that a player acting like they are on a new team (as happened with Camilo, as now with Larin) is a factor in considering the unilateral option to not have been implemented.

Finally, it does seem that a factor in Orlando's favour, post-Camilo, is that the players association seems to have accepted the principle of contract extensions via unilateral clauses.

Great post. Thanks for the clarity during this murkiest of weeks in Canadian soccer.

 

[Complete Homer]

20 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

So I have been trying to read up on this, here it goes, very hack but what seems to be the situation.

FIFA does not recognize unilateral options on contracts unless they fulfil a number of criteria, including: an increase in salary (an option cannot be a simple extension, it has to clearly benefit the player as well as the club, and perhaps has to also compensate a previously overly-low contract as well); previous knowledge of the clauses on the part of the player (perhaps not Camilo's case, apparently Larin did have knowledge of this); neither of the parts being put in a position where they are defenseless (in Larin's case, he could argue he signed that contract when he was very young, as this is a factor in giving a player wishing to leave certain negotiating advantage. Plus the option has to be exercised in a reasonable time period, there can't be a wait.

The reason that MLS has not taken this to court against FIFA, is that if they lose that could set a precedent across the board in MLS, wiping out all unilateral clauses. So the risk is too high, they prefer to fight it out case by case. 

Finally, the attitude of the player is important. If he continues to train with his club, and acts like his contract is extended, they it could be decided the option is valid. It seems then, oddly enough, that FIFA considers that a player acting like they are on a new team (as happened with Camilo, as now with Larin) is a factor in considering the unilateral option to not have been implemented.

Finally, it does seem that a factor in Orlando's favour, post-Camilo, is that the players association seems to have accepted the principle of contract extensions via unilateral clauses.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a citation/link to a pdf I can parse through? Interested in understanding this a bit better 

[Unnamed Trialist]

12 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have a citation/link to a pdf I can parse through? Interested in understanding this a bit better 

I had a few links, I was trying to summarize them; one on Reddit sent me here:

http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/exploring-the-validity-of-unilateral-extension-options-in-football-part-2-the-view-of-the-drc-and-the-cas-by-saverio-spera

 

[Complete Homer]

46 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I had a few links, I was trying to summarize them; one on Reddit sent me here:

http://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/exploring-the-validity-of-unilateral-extension-options-in-football-part-2-the-view-of-the-drc-and-the-cas-by-saverio-spera

 

Thanks 

[A_Gagne]

12 hours ago, Benjamin Massey said:

I don't believe MLS option years have been tested in court yet. Even if they prove invalid, Larin giving his word and breaking it for his own gain is ugly stuff.

I said the same thing when Camilo pulled this on the Whitecaps and don't see any reason to change my mind because the perp is Canadian this time.

I like your consistency.

Going way back to the Camilo thing though, he got the MLS golden boat, and asked the Whitecaps for a DP contract; the whitecaps told him to pound sand and exercised his option year ($250K/yr). They should have done the right thing and paid him what he was worth, and instead they overplayed their hand and lost their player.

I think Camilo would've been genuinely happy playing in Vancouver if the Caps management had treated him better. Soccer players generally only have about 5-8yrs of top income in order to bank enough for retirement, Camilo was already 24 (going on 25), so I don't begrudge him for rolling the dice and forcing his transfer.

For Larin, I don't think he's been screwed over by Orlando in the same way, so I don't think he has the same moral grounds... if one cares... this seems a lot more like pure opportunism.

I think the shitty thing for any top MLS prospect, is that the MLS is that thanks to their single entity structure and the fact that the league is mostly removed from the global transfer market. To a European team, an MLS prospect has added risk, because prospects don't often transfer from MLS to other leagues. This decreases what they're willing to pay for MLS prospects, while at the same time because the league takes a substantial cut of inter-league transfer revenues, clubs have way more incentive to trade within the league and way less incentive to trade players abroad. This probably a large part of the reason why Basiktas and Orlando haven't been able to come to terms.

Edited January 14, 2018 by A_Gagne

[mpg_29]

My question isn't whether the player "agreed" to the extension...but if they even had the ability to decline it. Agreeing to something you have no real say in otherwise doesn't mean much. It would just be an "acknowledgement" at that point of "yeah, you are extending my contract, OK". Curious what side FIFA would fall on in that respect.

Also regardless of the outcome of this particular situation...it gives the impression "Hey, If your a top young domestic prospect, don't sign in MLS". This is very opposite of what MLS needs it image to be.

[Yohan]

In any case, US law trumps FIFA in USA. And US law is pretty kosher with MLS contracts.

If Larin thinks FIFA is going to desanction MLS and USSF over his case, he's dreaming.

And he just burned the bridge back to playing in MLS, so he better hope that his European career pans out. He better hope CPL is still around as a plan B for his career.

[Scorpion26]

2 minutes ago, Yohan said:

In any case, US law trumps FIFA in USA. And US law is pretty kosher with MLS contracts.

If Larin thinks FIFA is going to desanction MLS and USSF over his case, he's dreaming.

And he just burned the bridge back to playing in MLS, so he better hope that his European career pans out. He better hope CPL is still around as a plan B for his career.

That's wrong because Clint Dempsey went through something similar and I'm sure a few others have as well. Larin was a star to be in MLS and they would welcome him back especially if he succeeds in Europe....

Anyways it sucks this is happening, but if Besiktas want him they should just pay the fee isn't around 5 or 6 mil...

[Yohan]

4 minutes ago, Scorpion26 said:

That's wrong because Clint Dempsey went through something similar and I'm sure a few others have as well. Larin was a star to be in MLS and they would welcome him back especially if he succeeds in Europe....

Anyways it sucks this is happening, but if Besiktas want him they should just pay the fee isn't around 5 or 6 mil...

Clint Dempsey did not sue MLS, unlike Larin. Either way, Fulham paid 4 mil for Dempsey in transfer fee. Though I don't remember Dempsey trying to twist MLS's arm with contracts. I do remember MLS blocking Shalrie Joseph's move abroad and IIRC Taylor Twellmann as well.

Edited January 14, 2018 by Yohan

[Scorpion26]

3 minutes ago, Yohan said:

Clint Dempsey did not sue MLS, unlike Larin. Either way, Fulham paid 4 mil for Dempsey in transfer fee. Though I don't remember Dempsey trying to twist MLS's arm with contracts. I do remember MLS blocking Shalrie Joseph's move abroad and IIRC Taylor Twellmann as well.

Just mentioning that MLS has done this before and caused a lenghty wait for a move to be completed overall... again if they really want him just pay the fee and move on....

[Bison44]

I dont get this at all.  UNilateral contract extension???  Isnt this written up clear as day in the initial contract he signed??  So many years and the team as the option for 1 more etc??  He cant even claim he doesnt understand (which is idiotic even when it was Camilo) these kinds of contracts are common in North america in many different sports.  These are not "made up rules", they are in black and white and he didnt have a gun to his head when signing.  He took the money signed the contract...why do these guys think when they are happy they'll take the money but a fairy godmother will get them out of the contract when they are not happy with the terms.  Besiktas will have to pay Orlando (buy out/transfer etc what ever you call it) so that they will let him out of his lawful contract and come to turkey.  And if FIFA doesnt like options in contracts then it should let everyone know that they wont be upheld etc and any kids signing with MLS  (or anywhere) shouldnt have them included in the contract.  I would have thought that the Camilo mess would have gotten MLS clubs to avoid options etc.  

[dyslexic nam]

The interesting aspect of this for me is the reputation it gives MLS when it comes to transfers out of the league.  I know the single entity structure is unlike most leagues, and therefore will have some unique elements, but for players looking to use it as a stepping stone or who may not see it as the final destination, the reputation of hindering a player's exit would have to factor into their thinking.  And for a league that is trying to move away from the retiring superstar stigma (and become a league where young, talented players make good $$ and get good exposure) I think that could be a serious drawback.  

[BrennanFan]

30 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

I dont get this at all.  UNilateral contract extension???  Isnt this written up clear as day in the initial contract he signed??  So many years and the team as the option for 1 more etc??  He cant even claim he doesnt understand (which is idiotic even when it was Camilo) these kinds of contracts are common in North america in many different sports.  These are not "made up rules", they are in black and white and he didnt have a gun to his head when signing.  He took the money signed the contract...why do these guys think when they are happy they'll take the money but a fairy godmother will get them out of the contract when they are not happy with the terms.  Besiktas will have to pay Orlando (buy out/transfer etc what ever you call it) so that they will let him out of his lawful contract and come to turkey.  And if FIFA doesnt like options in contracts then it should let everyone know that they wont be upheld etc and any kids signing with MLS  (or anywhere) shouldnt have them included in the contract.  I would have thought that the Camilo mess would have gotten MLS clubs to avoid options etc.  

They have.  Several FIFA tribunal decisions make it clear unilateral contract options are not enforceable.  Option years are very rare in the footballing world outside of MLS.

Bottom line is Larin's current MLS contract is totally disproportional to his current value on the world market, so MLS is in a very difficult position.  

[Bison44]

How does FIFA decide what is enforceable in a contract agreed to by both sides...this seems very murky.  So basically is this just MLS being dicks??  Option contracts cause problems for anyone wanting to transfer out...so why have them??  Dont they want to be able to transfer prospects out and reap the reward??  Its not like MLS hasnt been around for 20 years, you would think they could get this kind of stuff straight.  

[jpg75]

1 hour ago, Bison44 said:

How does FIFA decide what is enforceable in a contract agreed to by both sides...this seems very murky.  So basically is this just MLS being dicks??  Option contracts cause problems for anyone wanting to transfer out...so why have them??  Dont they want to be able to transfer prospects out and reap the reward??  Its not like MLS hasnt been around for 20 years, you would think they could get this kind of stuff straight.  

They want to avoid overpaying young players so they hand out contracts with "options" that aren't really options in the same sense as the other major NA sports. It's actually something closer to Restricted Free Agency. Does anyone even know what MLS is offering him for next year? What recourse do these players have if they don't like the amount offered ie. is arbitration available?

[Ansem]

4 hours ago, Yohan said:

Clint Dempsey did not sue MLS, unlike Larin. Either way, Fulham paid 4 mil for Dempsey in transfer fee. Though I don't remember Dempsey trying to twist MLS's arm with contracts. I do remember MLS blocking Shalrie Joseph's move abroad and IIRC Taylor Twellmann as well.

This gets settled off courts. Besiktas gets Larin at a low transfer fee so everyone can move on

Makes MLS looks bad actually if they went a step further to make Larin sign a contract saying that he was aware of that optional year and accepted it. The whole extra step to me is a way to go around existing rules.

FIFA are unlike to care about that

Edited January 14, 2018 by Ansem

[mpg_29]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

This gets settled off courts. Besiktas gets Larin at a low transfer fee so everyone can move on

Makes MLS looks bad actually if they went a step further to make Larin sign a contract saying that he was aware of that optional year and accepted it. The whole extra step to me is a way to go around existing rules.

FIFA are unlike to care about that

It means even they didn't have total confidence in the validity of the contract...

"This contract totally fine a valid but we need another signature"...

Edited January 14, 2018 by mpg_29

[jpg75]

Just remembered, even if he signs for free Besiktas will still have to pay comp. to MLS for his development because he's under 23 years of age....both sides need to compromise and just get this shit done and over with.

[Alex D]

Does Sigma stand to collect any compensation?

[Bison44]

12 minutes ago, jpg75 said:

Just remembered, even if he signs for free Besiktas will still have to pay comp. to MLS for his development because he's under 23 years of age....both sides need to compromise and just get this shit done and over with.

As far as compensation...does Sigma get a piece of that pie as well??    OOPS, beat me to it ALEX D.  

Edited January 14, 2018 by Bison44

[Ansem]

Hoping Sigma gets the money

Edited January 14, 2018 by Ansem

[Vince193]

54 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

As far as compensation...does Sigma get a piece of that pie as well??    OOPS, beat me to it ALEX D.  

They will. North Missisauga got a fee for Doneil Henry's transer.

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 hours ago, Bison44 said:

I dont get this at all.  UNilateral contract extension???  Isnt this written up clear as day in the initial contract he signed??  So many years and the team as the option for 1 more etc??  He cant even claim he doesnt understand (which is idiotic even when it was Camilo) these kinds of contracts are common in North america in many different sports.  These are not "made up rules", they are in black and white and he didnt have a gun to his head when signing.  He took the money signed the contract...why do these guys think when they are happy they'll take the money but a fairy godmother will get them out of the contract when they are not happy with the terms.  Besiktas will have to pay Orlando (buy out/transfer etc what ever you call it) so that they will let him out of his lawful contract and come to turkey.  And if FIFA doesnt like options in contracts then it should let everyone know that they wont be upheld etc and any kids signing with MLS  (or anywhere) shouldnt have them included in the contract.  I would have thought that the Camilo mess would have gotten MLS clubs to avoid options etc.  

If you read the link I posted, to a rather complex article, the juridprudence does not go that way. First, there has to be a clear pay rise, and made clear beforehand. Second, the player cannot contractually be bound to an extension without his agreement, it has to be a mutual accord: not in the first contract term, but when it comes to extensions. Third he can be exempted contractually if he was young when he signed his first contract, it if it deemed he was taken advantage of or is in a position where he cannot protect his own interests (for example, not Larin but in cases heard: you cannot have a kid sign for six years , a team decides to not play  after two and shows intent to kill four years of his career. Fifa is willing to accept those terms could be broken). MLS continues to write those options into contracts because they prefer to not contest the point before FIFA, they simply ignore it to not risk it being annulled across the board They'd rather deal with it only when it arises. That suggests lack of good faith.

Finally, there are some countries, like Spain, that have obligatory buy-out clauses. True, some are ridiculously high, but the principle is simple: any labour contract can be broken. I ask you: do you not think you should have the right too break a work contract you are in at your own discretion, and your employer as well? With compensation of course. 

This whole business about you signed it, you have to keep your word is bull. MLS clubs trade players away at the drop of a hat, unlike anywhere in the world, breaking the spirit of all contracts, which are signed on the basis of "we want you to come play for us" and "sure I want to play for you". I have never seen anyone on this board get as upset about the injustice of a trade as they do with these cases like Camilo or Larin. 

[BCM]

13 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

If you read the link I posted, to a rather complex article, the juridprudence does not go that way. First, there has to be a clear pay rise, and made clear beforehand. Second, the player cannot contractually be bound to an extension without his agreement, it has to be a mutual accord: not in the first contract term, but when it comes to extensions. Third he can be exempted contractually if he was young when he signed his first contract, it if it deemed he was taken advantage of or is in a position where he cannot protect his own interests (for example, not Larin but in cases heard: you cannot have a kid sign for six years , a team decides to not play  after two and shows intent to kill four years of his career. Fifa is willing to accept those terms could be broken). MLS continues to write those options into contracts because they prefer to not contest the point before FIFA, they simply ignore it to not risk it being annulled across the board They'd rather deal with it only when it arises. That suggests lack of good faith.

Finally, there are some countries, like Spain, that have obligatory buy-out clauses. True, some are ridiculously high, but the principle is simple: any labour contract can be broken. I ask you: do you not think you should have the right too break a work contract you are in at your own discretion, and your employer as well? With compensation of course. 

This whole business about you signed it, you have to keep your word is bull. MLS clubs trade players away at the drop of a hat, unlike anywhere in the world, breaking the spirit of all contracts, which are signed on the basis of "we want you to come play for us" and "sure I want to play for you". I have never seen anyone on this board get as upset about the injustice of a trade as they do with these cases like Camilo or Larin. 

Agree with a lot of what you say, but disagree on the trade/spirit of contract argument. Trades are part of the North American game, and all players understand them before signing (especially true of North American players). Don't agree to it, then don't sign in a league with trades.

On ability to break contracts - agree with contract break clause. But without, I do believe a player should honour the deal. In many cases, a bonus is paid or the wage structure may feature an early balloon payment. To accept these, then want to break early is really unfair to the club. Moreover, players love the stability a long term contract brings. One club (and only one club) may take a flyer on a player with a history of injuries and offer a multi-year deal, if it pays off they should benefit and not be ditched at the first opportunity. The player with the 4 year contract certainly wouldn't agree to being ditched by the club if year 1 went poorly.

MLS - yes it is a legal quagmire waiting to happen. I do not think it is in bad faith, but rather they will deal with it when sued and they have to do so. Until that day (which may never come), avoid it. Companies do this all the time, universities too.