(no subject)

[lovingboth]

Hello friendly lawyers... Not for the first time, the behaviour of Manchester United has made me wonder. David Beckham has a contract with them for two or three years, yet they've anounced that they want to sell him to Barcelona... without apparently asking him first.

Presumably he can say 'get lost, we have a contract, pay my wages for the next two or three years'?

Could he successfully claim constructive dismissal? If he were out of contract, he'd be able to make more money and they'd be left with no transfer fee.

One of the reasons for ManU picking Barcelona is that they are not a club they are likely to face in the European Cup, unlike eg Real Madrid. Presumably if they tried to include a clause in the sale that said 'you can't sell him onto Real Madrid', it'd be declared an unlawful restraint of trade?

Comments

[vampwillow]

I've been wondering whether to make a post about this for a day or two, now I've got the opportunity!!

Firstly, ManU do not show Beckham on their accounts as an asset. He has no 'value' at the moment because he has never been traded thus without a purchase cost he is a cost to them (salary) but not an asset. This makes their gearing worse and means there is great value to them in selling him (and, arguably, buying him back in a year or two)

Secondly, his contract has two years to run. If they wait until then Beckham can walk off into a new club and ManU get zilch benefit; by selling him now he is an asset they can get some money for.

A bit like boxers and some other sports where 'the management' effectively own your contract to take part in the sport, there is no argument for restraint of trade, similarly if the management want to keep you on the bench for a whole season there is nothing you, as a player, can do about it.

Players are assets to be bought and sold, every bit as much as buildings, licences, concessions and advertising. Beckham has no real choice in the matter - after all he *did* choose to be a footballer.

This posting came courtesy of workshop on my Finance residential course on the subject of the financial statement and situation of ManU!

Q: does Beckham have the ability to do much else?

[lovingboth]

Boxers seem to sign longer contracts than footballers, career long ones, and with TV companies in addition to managers. Hence the difficulties in getting boxers with contracts with different TV stations to fight.

If Beckham is left on the bench while he is in contract he may not like it, he may put in a request for a transfer, but he would still be paid his tens of thousands of quid a week. A tough life, but one most of us would jump at.

On the other hand, if they want to sell him, he has to agree... doesn't he? His contract is with Man U, not [pick Spanish/Italian club].

Since Bosnan (sp?) once he's out of contract, he's free to go as you say. In the past, clubs would hang onto the registration with the FA necessary to play with someone else.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Drive-by comment: http://www.liv.ac.uk/footballindustry/bosman.html

[lovingboth]

Hmm, so under the compromise, if during the period of his contract Beckham says 'no', ManU are unable to get a transfer fee.

But presumably even if they were willing to do that, they couldn't get rid of him without being liable for breaking the contract of employment?

And the full rules at

http://www.fifa.com/en/organisation/player/transfer.html

say if Beckham says 'no', then the English FA should refuse to issue the necessary transfer documentation = he wouldn't be able to play for a club in another country.

I wonder if Barcelona, at least, are guilty of inducing a breach of contract (penalty: no inward transfers for roughly a year!)