'Owning' a player

Clubs don't truly own players anymore. Back in the day, pre-Bosman, then it's a strange concept to think that even out of contract players couldn't walk away.

It works as protection for the players as well as the clubs. Players are prtotected by their contracts through lack injury, lack of fitness etc etc. If it came to a point where players could walk away more easily, without transfer fees, then clubs would rightly expect to be able to get rid of players more easily also.
 
I believe that when Boro paid £1,000 for Alf Common there was outrage saying that players were bought and sold like slaves.
 
The Bosman ruling really changed this.

Clubs didn't "own" players before that, but they did own the player's registration. This meant even if a contract had expired, the club still held their registration, and the player could not move anywhere else without a fee being paid.
 
I believe that when Boro paid £1,000 for Alf Common there was outrage saying that players were bought and sold like slaves.
Wasn't this Wilf's whole gripe when he refused to play for us? His actions changed football, as did Jimmy Hill's and certainly Jean-Marc Bosman's.

At some point, though, it feels as if the balance of power needs to be redressed somehow, because players have a bit too much now.
 
Yes i think that was Wilfs gripe with Boro.

Jimmy Hill was leader of the PFA who campaigned over players wages.I understand Johnny Haynes of Fulham was the first player to earn £100 pw.
 
Back
Top