In response to yesterday’s post, buddy John League writes:

Granted, you don’t want someone in your side who really doesn’t want to be there, but come on. This is ridiculous. If players refuse to honor long-term contracts, why should they be offered to them? (I know why, but, as a devil’s advocate, I think that’s where this argument ultimately points.)

I wrote such a long-winded reply that I thought I would use it as a post instead:

My guess is that this is a specifically European phenomenon due to the labor agreements put in place by the EU. The big one of course is the 1995 Bosman ruling, which meant teams lost the right to the player once his contract expired, known here as free agency. This has led to greater fluidity of player movement, since clubs pay out a huge fee to sign a player can only recoup some of that money if the player leaves the club before the end of his contract. That’s why people get uptight when players stall on signing extended contracts, like Judas Sol Campbell, only to leave on a free when their contract expires.

But that doesn’t directly answer your question, now does it? The Bosman ruling tipped the power heavily in favor of the player around the same time Europe’s biggest clubs started to cash in on their global market share, launching themselves into an entirely different financial category. Notice how you never hear of a tapping up scandal involving West Ham and Blackburn, for instance.

Certain massive clubs have a knack of expressing interest in certain players. The player gets the idea in his head that “I have always wanted to play for _____ _____” and then slaps down a transfer request. Around this time, it’s totally legal for the big club to ask for permission to speak with the player, which can be denied, but then there’s the media’s role in keeping the story going and the negotiations practically happen in the papers. Like a wildfire, once it starts, it’s difficult to stop and impossible to control.

Man Ure’s open courting of Berbatov, Liverpool’s courting of Keane and Barry, and Real’s courting of Ronaldo all fall into this category. The reason why the last one has gotten so much attention is because it’s the only case where the player is not moving from a team that has no chance at the title and is not playing in the Champs League. It’s very easy for Berba, Keano, and Barry to say to their manager, “This is a chance for me to win titles and play Champions League football, which is what I need for my career,” and, truthfully, there’s not much of a comeback for the club. It puts the smaller clubs in the position of both stunting a promising player’s career and keeping someone who doesn’t want to be there, when they can sell and cash in. Note how this keeps the big clubs big and the other club the same size. Even if they spend the money wisely on more up-and-coming players, what prevents this from happening again with new players?

But the biggest stink comes when players want away from a club who is already regularly challenging for trophies. The biggest transfer sagas of recent memory were Gallas from Ars*nal to Chelski, CAshley Cole going the other way, Henry to Barca, Lamps to Inter, and maybe Becks from Man Ure to Real Madrid (although Ferguson wanted rid of him so that one probably doesn’t fit). And of course Ronaldo, currently the best player in the world wanting away from the reigning English and European Champions, tops them all. The difference in these cases is that the player’s case for wanting away is weakened (unless it’s allegedly for family reasons, or reuniting with a manager, or wanting a new challenge—or of course bags and bags of money) and the selling clubs really don’t need the cash that badly. So it quickly reaches an impasse, and it seems in most cases that the best the club can do is get the player to commit to one more year.

As far as long-term contracts go, I think they exist primarily because that inflates the player’s value. If I sign you to a £13 billion contract over five years, any club that comes sniffing around has to pay that and more. Short-term contracts land you in Bosman trouble year after year, meaning the player can walk if he doesn’t sign an extension. That’s why so many players over the age of 30 only get 1-2 year deals, because there are few players who can continue to produce regularly at that age without getting injured.

So in general, contracts are a sham for both clubs and players. Maybe it’s better to think of them as explanations of current working conditions and, if you’re more cynical, price tags.