Football is selfish, weird and abusive on workers’ rights; ask Lassana Diarra

John Nicholson
Lassana Diarra
Lassana Diarra

Football has always walked a unique line in relation to workers’ rights. First, that’s exactly what footballers are; they are presented to us as privileged, exotic beasts, but they are nothing more or less than workers.

For years, a club held a player’s registration and there was nothing the player could do about it until his contract expired. There are numerous examples of a club just holding on to it, merely to spite the individual who wanted to move.

They didn’t have the basic freedoms we all take for granted, which is to have our hours defined and the freedom to work a notice and change employers at will. Those are not radical freedoms but this is football, where workers are endlessly exploited under the demand for loyalty.

The reasons for this were always exploitative, spurious and unjustified. The argument was made that a manager had to have a settled side and couldn’t just have his striker swanning off whenever he liked, so they shackled his right to leave, while having no qualms about binning off a player who the manager didn’t fancy anymore.

A reminder now that for most of football’s history there was no ‘transfer window’ and you could be transferred any time. Have a row with the manager? He could put you up for sale, but it could never be the other way around. Until now.

MORE FROM JOHNNY: Welcome to the exhibition Premier League, where anyone can beat anyone else but almost never does

The Lassana Diarra case, in which the court of justice for the European Union ruled ‘some FIFA rules on international transfers of professional footballers are contrary to EU law’ and that they ‘impede the free movement’ would put an end to that, if enforced, and while there are still some hurdles to overcome, football should no longer be able to ride roughshod over basic human rights.

Of course the authorities will unreasonably squeal, but it’s about time football stopped thinking that employment laws don’t apply to them. So if you are hating it at Old Trafford (and who wouldn’t be?) and have realised the manager is useless and you are disrespected, you can pay up your contract and leave. A new club might even pay it for you, in order to secure your signature. It’s your absolute right. Why shouldn’t you?

We’re so used to the word ‘contract’ being attached to a timespan in football, but why? Somehow, it’s become attached to nebulous concepts like proof of loyalty. We’ve got to get over such childish notions. Football is work and should be governed by the same employment laws as any job.

Of course, this incentivises giving long and expensive contracts to dissuade paying them up and moving on, but simultaneously disincentivises taking them for the same reason. And if you’ve just 18 months left and can easily afford to buy yourself out, it makes moving at a time that suits the worker easier. And it should be.

A lot is talked about the security that a long contract offers, but nothing about the freedoms it restricts.

Footballers are a strange mix of contracted employee and self-employed worker, but football is just football, it shouldn’t trump greater principles, even though FIFA has long thought it should and all laws should be suspended once you push the turnstile. The player registration system is in itself bizarre and arcane, belonging to a past, oppressive age. Players are men and women, not chattels or assets, though they are treated as such by clubs and agents.

Since its inception, clubs have disgracefully abused workers’ rights so much and for so long that it’s taken for granted and rarely even questioned. Because the player is oppressed, they have had to resort to subterfuge and even strike to try to circumvent the current situation and be released to be employed by someone else.

Fans do not have a right to demand loyalty from their club’s workers and are deluded if they do. If they were held to such demands at their work, they would think it unfair. Why is it different for footballers? Fans have long been sold the idea of one-way loyalty as normal and uncontroversial, but it’s infantile and treats players like they are children who need controlling. It’s more typical of some Victorian mill owners.

The existence of a thing called ‘player registration’ alone, alongside a contract, is just flat-out weird. Think about it. Here’s your contract, stating your wages and duration and various other conditions, oh and we’ve also got this thing which prevents you from playing for anyone else, even if you want to. Even though your contract of employment is with us and that does the very same thing. We’ve got you in a double bind.

Obviously this will be seen through the prism of the monied elite, but it affects a far greater number of low-paid, humble workers. Players who play for Barrow who want to sign for Hartlepool, but can’t because Barrow won’t release them. You’ve probably not heard of them, but ‘footballer’ is their job too. They might love playing, but it is nonetheless their job and they deserve the exact same rights.

It will be said, of course, that clubs have no interest in holding on to a player who doesn’t want to be there. Fine, they won’t object to their freedom of employment set into law will they? Well, yes, they do actually. So much so they went to court to dispute any change, clinging on to unfair practices. Not exactly respectful or progressive.

Imagine a more fair football future that looks very different from the past. A player can leave when they want, pay up their remaining contract and go. I’d further argue that they shouldn’t even have to pay up the contract. It’s weird. Do you have to do that? No. The contract should set out terms and conditions (and incidentally a maximum number of games to be played, or hours of labour as we would normally know them), but rarely length of employment. Surely that should be assessed by both parties on an ongoing basis.

Imagine if you were working on the till for Tesco and had to pay them any money to quit and go to work on the till at Asda. That would feel very unfair and unjust, wouldn’t it? Imagine if Tesco said you had to work for them for five years and you couldn’t work anywhere else unless they agreed to it. No one would stand for that.

And if you want to defend its existence as security for players, why don’t you assert that all employment contracts should have a time limit? Because it’s oppressive, that’s why. As soon as you put it into ‘ordinary’ terms, it makes the issue clear. Football is selfish, weird, abusive and has unjustifiable employment laws.

FIFA will protest almost certainly, but this is entirely normal and shouldn’t even be uncontroversial. Only to a perverted sick, short-sighted, neo-capitalist business model, keen to pretend they’re in favour of a free market, do workers’ rights seem even the slightest bit controversial.

I suppose when you’re used to being oppressive, freedoms seem threatening. Why are FIFA fighting this? Why do they want players to be so restricted? Why do they care? It is something that should be celebrated, not fought in the courts. Lassana Diarra might be an unlikely hero.

MORE FROM JOHNNY: Welcome to the exhibition Premier League, where anyone can beat anyone else but almost never does