https://www.*********/en-gb/news/28...-lose-sterling-for-just-15m-under-the-webster
A nice article about that FIFA article and how tricky it is. Replace the * by g o a l . c o m
Could Liverpool lose Sterling for just £1.5m under the Webster ruling?
December will see the 20-year-old move past the 'protected period' in his current contract, meaning that he could buy out the final year of his deal in the summer of 2016
GOALSPECIAL REPORT By Liam Twomey Follow on Twitter
Brendan Rodgers insists that Liverpool are "not overly concerned" by Raheem Sterling's decision to postpone contract talks until the summer and perhaps it is a little early to panic. The 20-year-old still has more than two years left on his current deal at Anfield and is yet to voice any explicit desire to leave.
But the window for Liverpool to tie down Sterling may be smaller than it appears, depending on just how determined the youngster and his representatives are to secure the most lucrative possible financial package on Merseyside or elsewhere.
December would see Sterling move into the fourth year of the long-term deal that he signed back in 2012 and add another considerable ace to what appears an increasingly formidable hand. The 20-year-old could, in theory, buy out the final year of his contract in the summer of 2016 and gain full control over his next destination.
Article 17 of Fifa’s transfer rules enables any player under the age of 28 to terminate their employment once a "protected period" of three years comes to an end, provided that they notify their club of the intent to do so within 15 days of the final competitive match of the season and pay any required compensation.
The precedent is the acrimonious transfer of Andy Webster from Hearts to Wigan in August 2006. Frozen out after a dispute with the club’s controversial owner Victor Romanov having sought to join Rangers, the Scottish defender invoked Article 17 to force through a move to the Premier League.
After an 18-month legal battle that reached the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, it was decided that Hearts were due just £150,000 in compensation, based primarily on the wages due for the remainder of Webster’s contract. Along these lines, Sterling could theoretically buy out the final year of his £30,000-a-week deal for a little over £1.5 million.
It is, however, not quite a simple as that. "The calculation that CAS came up with in Webster whereby he was only required to pay compensation on the remaining amount of his wages is probably less of a possibility, for a couple of reasons," Daniel Geey, sports lawyer with Field Fisher Waterhouse, tells Goal.
He points to the more recent cases of Brazilian midfielder Matuzalem’s protracted transfer from Shakhtar Donetsk to Real Zaragoza and goalkeeper Morgan De Sanctis’s abrupt departure from Udinese to join Sevilla, both in the summer of 2007.
"In those cases compensation wasn’t a calculation of the remaining proportion of the wages that should be covered, it was of the actual harm the club suffered," Geey adds. "In the case of De Sanctis it was the replacement cost for Udinese to buy a goalkeeper of similar standing, and in the end the cost of two was included in the calculation."
The fallout from the Webster ruling has created another complication. "There’s usually a clause in the employment contract of a number of Premier League players that states if they unilaterally terminate their contract, the market rate of the player will be classed as the harm suffered," Geey explains.
"Then it’s up to the Dispute Resolution Chamber of Fifa and/or CAS to make a decision on the market rate of the player. That’s quite unattractive to any player who’s looking to go to another club, because the buying club won’t know how much they could potentially pay in the end."
If Sterling’s contract contains such a clause, the cost to the player and the club that signs him of exploiting Article 17 would likely be considerably more than £1.5m, though removing the deal from the confines of the transfer market makes the precise figure almost impossible to predict. "Market value is only usually between a willing buyer and a willing seller, not decided in a court," Geey admits.
The length and cost of the legal battles associated with Article 17 cases have helped to keep them on the fringes of football’s transfer economy since Webster and Geey sees nothing to suggest that that will change. "There are easier ways for a player to try and transfer - in the worst case putting in a transfer request and losing out on potential loyalty bonuses," he insists.
No high-profile Premier League player has yet tried to exploit Article 17, despite several pointed invocations during fraught contract talks in recent years. Nor is there any indication that Sterling will be the first but its looming presence on the horizon is a powerful reminder to Liverpool of who will hold all the cards should they fail to resolve this impasse in the summer.
will set a 400M price for Neyboy again next summer so we'll forget about him once and for all.
