The "Webster" Ruling

It's not quite a Bosman but it looks as though the ruling will allow big money players like Ronaldinho, Messi etc to walk away owing the club only the equivalent of the final year's salary. Just now you can't predict what effect this will have on the transfer market but it doesn't look like it's going to take the transfer market up another notch if it's the case. Fraser Wishart and Tony Higgins of the Scottish players union claim to have had a list of unspecified big names from all over the world ringing and asking for advice on the ruling. There should be some interesting developments from this one. How many of you know what this is about though? If like most people you got lost somewhere in the middle here is a brief summary: this could be even more significant than the Bosman ruling. Before Webster a player was still at least tied to his contract. Andrew Webster of Hearts could go down in history in the same way Jean-Marc Bosman has.

"It means Manchester United’s Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the hottest properties in world football, could theoretically walk away from Old Trafford in 2010, then aged 25 and arguably at his peak, for £12m. Cesc Fabregas could leave Arsenal in 2010, then aged 23, for a similar sum. Under the rule, any footballer aged between 23 and 28 is entitled to walk away from a club, so long as he has served three years of a four or five-year contract. But, more controversially, any player aged 28 or over can also now terminate his contract so long as he has served two years of its duration. Article 17, in effect, goes some way to abolishing huge transfer fees. For example, if a 29-year-old player wishes to leave one club for another – such as was the case with Thierry Henry last season – the only compensation due would be the value of his wages left on his contract."

From the Independant and the Guardian

From a Rangers persective this can only be a good thing. In the near future we may be unable to compete in the transfer market with some Championship clubs nevermind those in the Premiership as they would spend knowing they would get a return on future transfers. Now that is no longer the case transfer fees will fall. Hutton could be back in three years time for £1.5M. From another perspective though this menas that players may need to be paid what they are effectively worth meaning wages could spiral even further out of control for the average footballer. Theoretically transfer prices will go down but wages will go up. It's like any fixed term employment contract now. the same benefits the rest of us have always had. In fact I'm surprised you can't walk away earlier as long as you pay compensation.

However this rule does not apply to teams within the same country/league and must be cross border or abroad. It will have to be outwith the country in a similar manner to the deal Rangers done with Wigan which is already slightly suspicious in reptrospect. This will probably lead to a lot more rows about clubs "tapping up" players. Clubs will have to be thinking "Is it wise to spend £7M on a striker if he can walk away in 2 or 3 years time - when he's in his late 20's - for a years salary?"

The players and agents are certainly going to benefit from this though first and foremost. The player will now get an increase every time he wants to negotiate an updated contract and also has the option of walking away easier. That's positives and negatives depending on how you look at it. I think this only applies when a player signs a four year contract or more. Then after three years they can decide to do a Webster. What you may find now is clubs will sign players on three year contracts with a one year option. Players will no longer be tied down to a club for that long without receiving new contracts that will have significant bonuses added into them to make them stay.

But what happens with all the youngsters that each and every club produce on their own? Could Alan Hutton under the new ruling have been going for next to nothing? Does that mean that it will be very difficult for us in the future to try and build a team of our younger players? I don't know if it is that good for clubs like Rangers when you look at it that way. This is not a decision by FIFA they will hate this decision just as much as every other big club including Rangers. That is the end of the transfer market as we know it, no clubs will pay over £5million for a player now. Aswell as a Bosman they can now cite a Webster, just handed full control of the transfer market to players and their agents. Yes, it's in the last year of a contract, so instead of people moving on a Bosman, it means they can now immediately resign, as long as they give enough notice. This will avoid players playing from early January to the end of season knowing they're off, and perhaps not trying as hard as they could - or the fans thinking that certainly. At least now they only have to give a minimal notice period - not sure how long, but only a couple of weeks or so - before they enter the last year of their contract.

Luke Moore was linked with Rangers in a £3.5m deal. He can now give notice in the summer and unilaterally break the last year of his contract. The maximum payment due to Villa will be his salary for that last year. What is he on ? Presumably less than £20k per week, so less than £1m compensation. Likewise, Nakamura can move on in the summer for one year's salary. And a whole host of players in all probability.

Everybody said the Bosman ruling would kill tranfsers. It didn't. Make no bones about it, this weeks 'Webster' decision has blown a huge hole through the transfer system. The only certainty at this point is that agents will be delighted with this ruling. We'll just have to see how the first few years of players and agents being able to exploit this from here on in goes.

Catalonia vs Euskal Herria

Tomorrow evening will see Catalonia play the Basque Country, in San Mames, in a match that takes place between the sides over the Spanish Leagues Christmas off-season period. As always controversy has surrounded this game as both federations suggest that their 'national team' be given official status and recognised by FIFA as separate entities from the Spanish national side.

Previously the Basque country had always been known as Euskadi in such events. However, this time they are lining up under the name of Euskal Herria. The difference between these names is that Euskadi is solely the region of Northern Spain whilst Euskal Herria is suggesting that part of France and the region Navarra in Spain are also part of a 'Basque nation'. This change of name has angered the French Federation in particular.

















Catalonia existed as a country before Spain came into existence. Within Spain exists regional identities and strong nationalistic movements for these regions to breakaway from Spain and exist as separate entities. Catalonia was a country with a proud sea heritage, even before the country of Spain was created. This only happened when the houses of Aragon and Castille came together after the marriage of Ferdinand II and Isabella I in 1469.

Both the Catalan and Basque football federations have been appealing to UEFA and FIFA for a number of years now - in the hope of gaining official status for their teams - in order for them to play in Euro Championships and World Cups. European football's governing body UEFA has delayed a controversial decision to grant membership to Gibraltar -- despite being ordered to do so by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The FEF (Spanish Federation) are getting really worried now - as if Gibraltar are granted membership - Catalonia and The Basque Country have made it clear they will push to even harder to be recognized by UEFA.

Both the Catalan and Basque football federations have been appealing to UEFA and FIFA for a number of years now - in the hope of gaining official status for their teams - in order for them to play in Euro Championships and World Cups. European football's governing body UEFA has delayed a controversial decision to grant membership to Gibraltar -- despite being ordered to do so by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The FEF (Spanish Federation) are getting really worried now - as if Gibraltar are granted membership - Catalonia and The Basque Country have made it clear they will push to even harder to be recognized by UEFA. Gibraltar is a tiny place - if they are granted membership they will not compete at any serious level but with the Faroe Islands already there - whilst remaining attached to Denmark - it is hypocritical to deny them their right to take part. If the Spanish regions gained membership, you might find Corsica applying, and Russian Republics like Chechnya, Dagestan and North Ossetia aswell.

However, Catalonia and Euskadi are pushing for a change in the Spanish Constitution - to have more of a federal system, whereas they would technically still remain as part of Spain, but they will be seen and recognized as independent states in their own right. - Some in Spain's ruling Socialist Government as well as the usual nationalist parties are in favour of it. Again though, despite the fact that Germany is a federated state you don't see the likes of Bavaria applying for their own team! Although this is different since Bavaria and other German states haven't got the independence movements that they have in Catalonia and Euskadi.

This internal regional conflict is often a reason given for the poor performances at major tournaments by the Spanish national side. However to use this as an excuse for the Spanish National sides' failures shouldn't it mean that Italy with Sicilia, Sardegna, the Mezzo Giorno and the North in permanent conflict that they too shouldn't win anything? Perhaps a Catalan is not as comfortable or less susceptible to giving his all for Spain and the regionalised side could go on and outperform the Spain side of present.






















The regions of Spain















The "regions" of the United Kingdom (and Ireland)

Usually Britain is cited as an example of having four different International teams yet all coming under the unified umbrella of the United Kingdom just as Catalonia and Euskadi wish to exist within Spain. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are regions of the United Kingdom in a political sense, but in sports they are recognised nationalities and take part in European Qualification. However, the fact is the four British federations existed before FIFA, so the governing body had no choice but to accept it. England created it's federation in 1863, Scotland in 1873, Wales in 1876 and Ireland in 1880. FIFA was founded in 1904 - a generation later.

The reason many are unsupportive of what these regions want is that to an extent they want the best of both worlds. They want their own 'national' teams, but they still want the club sides from their regions to play in a unified Spanish league. There are examples in world football where teams play outwith their own country such as Swansea and Cardiff City playing in England being based in Wales and the Principality of Monaco have a club side playing in the French league.

Would Messi, Eto'o, Ronaldinho and co really stay at the Camp Nou, if he only had the likes of Sant Andreu, L'Hospitalet and Figueres to play on a regular basis, with the biggest match of the season being against Espanyol? It would be interesting to see a survey conducted in Sport (the main Catalan sports paper) asking 'Would you give up Barcelona's place in La Liga for a Catalan national team and independence?' and what results that would show. Perhaps many are the ninety minute nationalists Alex Salmond berated the majority of the Tartan Army in Scotland. It must not be forgotten that almost 50% of voters in The Basque Country, vote for mainstream parties that wish the region to remain part of Spain and in Catalonia a substantial number of people there also vote for the main 'Unionist' parties 'PP' and 'PSOE' - although it must be stated that the main Nationalist party usually receives the most votes.

The answer should really be simple: if a country has its own federation and championship then it is an independent football country. There are 193 internationally recognised countries, but there are 207 FIFA Football Associations. Article 10, Paragraph 6 of the FIFA statutes states:

'A football association representing a territory that has not yet gained independence may apply for FIFA membership if it has the authorization of the association of the country to which this territory belongs. For example, the Faroe Islands in the North Atlantic are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. To form their own national team, the islanders needed the approval of the Danish football association. The latter endorsed the plan in 1988, enabling the Faroe Islands to become a FIFA member. FIFA's latest addition arrived in September 2005: East Timor and the Comoros became member's No. 206 and 207 of the FIFA football family.'

However, from a recent article it must be pointed out that this is not always the case:

"The list of FIFA member that are not states recognized by the United Nations is lengthy: American Samoa, Anguilla, Aruba, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Faroe Islands, Guam, Hong Kong, Macau, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Palestine, Puerto Rico, Tahiti, Taiwan, Turks & Caicos, and the US Virgin Islands.."

Catalonia has it's own federation, cup competition and regional leagues - yet is not allowed to become a FIFA member. They know that FIFA would turn them down, due to this non-membership of the United Nations and because the Spanish Federation is a strong voice within football governing body - its a certainty they would make moves to block it and this is the only reason they are yet to apply properly. Perhaps the best route for overall appeasement would be to keep a centralised league going should independence ever become a reality, such is the case with the Welsh league system, in Spain. The biggest sides Swansea and Cardiff compete in the English footballing league system whilst the winner of the League of Wales is given entry to the preliminary stages of the UEFA ran continental tournaments. Barcelona and the rest will compete in the Spanish leagues whilst a smaller side from Catalonia compete in the preliminary rounds of the European cups.

The norm is this: countries recognized by the United Nations have their own national teams. And it is natural and normal that this is the way it is, because in addition to Catalonia and the Basque Country, there is Padania, there is Brittany, there is Corsica, there is the Flemish question and nobody wants to open this can of worms. The Faroe Islands and Greenland, while being Crown territories of Denmark, are both politically independent, autonomous states. In that case the Isle of Man and Jersey should have teams. Yes it's perfectly fine to stage a friendly match, as it's a legitimate freedom of expression, inside the nationalistic strategies of both communities, however official status is out of the question.