I am a PSV supporter and I hoped to be able to discuss the Labyad situation a little here. I think it would be nice to keep each other updated because in the Netherlands there are still a lot of questions about his move to Sporting.
It is believed that Labyad still has either a one year or a two year contract at PSV. Before Labyad was 18 years old, he signed a contract at PSV for three years with an option for PSV to extend it with another two years. These two years would start now and therefore he’d have a contract at PSV until 2014. Labyad now says that this option is not valid because players under the age of 18 can’t sign a contract for more than three years. This is probably right (based on FIFA rules), although a lawyer from the Dutch Football Association (KNVB) looked at this case and confirmed that both the contract and the option are valid.
So, let’s assume that Labyad is right and this two year extension option is not valid. This would mean that Labyad has no contract at PSV anymore. However, this is where the one year contract I mentioned earlier gets relevant. When contracts expire, players have to send a written notice to their club’s management to confirm they want to terminate the contract and leave. Decent agents know this and make sure this is taken care of. Labyad’s agent however, is his father and he’s new to this job and wasn’t aware of this. So, now Labyad hasn’t terminated his contract at PSV which led to an automatic extension of one year.
So, now Labyad still has a contract at PSV and he signed another contract at Sporting. The PSV management are furious with Labyad and Sporting for signing this contract without agreeing about a transfer fee. They now say that PSV won’t acknowledge the transfer which would lead to Labyad not being allowed to play for Sporting. If Sporting refuse to pay a transfer fee, the only solution might be to let the FIFA decide what’s going to happen or go to court.
I’m curious about your opinion on the matter and about what you might know about the situation from Portugese media.
Is that by Dutch laws, FIFA laws or general labour laws? And if so, what’s the timeframe for this written notice in order to avoid automatic contract renewal? (there has to be a timeframe and stated clearly in the contract)
It’s (Dutch) labour law. In the Netherlands, transfers have failed for the same reason before. The deadline for sending this written notice was the 15th of May (this year). I was wondering: hasn’t any of this been in Portugese media?
I don’t know the Fifa rules for those cases (contract signing of underage players). If you say that it’s probably true that at light of the FIFA rules, a underage player can’t sign a contract for more than three years, I would say that he signed a contract that’s not valid or at least some parts of it aren’t valid.
When I read this case, i always thought that PSV claimed the two extra years, but you talk about an automatic extension of one year. It’s always so, when a player don’t send a written notice her contract is extended for one year ?
And how works when the player don’t have clauses for extra years and the contract rules out ? It’s automatic extended for one year if the club and the player don’t send a written notice ?
No, there’s no news about this in our media. the only thing we know is that Labyad was presented to supporters yesterday, and that PSV is furious with Sporting. I don’t know about dutch labour law, so I won’t discuss that issue. But that is a problem between PSV and Labyad. Either this transfer is legal by UEFA/FIFA laws, or is a breach of contract, and as to be solved by Labyad and PSV. Sporting signed a contract with the player six months before the end of his contract, by bosman’s law, and thats all we know.
In this time, we only have to wait. If PSV presents a claim in FIFA (I think that’s already done…) the only thing to do is wait for the decision…
You probably said it all, It’s a Dutch Law so if he went to another Dutch Club he probably would have problems with it.
Since he came to Portugal, and we do not have that law, he as only to obey FIFA rules. You can not impose a Dutch law in another coutry, they have their own laws. What regulates transfers between diferent countries is UEFA Rules.
Has any international transfer (netherlands → world) failed before because of this? And how can this clause of automatic renewal be valid if a player is allowed to sign a pre-contract for another club 6 months before ceasing contract according to UEFA/FIFA laws (which I’m sure are accepted by general labour laws in EU)?
The pre-contract should work as a 6-month prior notice and therefore overrule/invalidate the 1½-month prior notice for automatic renewal (and I will say it once again, it has to be clearly stated in the contract… are you sure it’s there?).
I don’t know why PSV is furious with Sporting, although I understand PSV being furious with the player.
PSV could only be furious with Sporting if there are pieces of information we are missing.
The matter is between PSV and Labyad, not Sporting. If PSV is right, I imagine Labyad will have to pay a compensation fee, but even in that case I don’t see how anyone could prevent Labyad from playing in Sporting.
Now, the thesis you present, is it the way everyone thinks about this case in the Netherlands?
I have seen Dutch people on TV (EuroNews, don’t ask me who, I don’t know Dutch personalities very well) defending PSV screwed up and has nothing to complain about.
I was visiting PSV’s site, and I found this article…
"Zakaria Labyad signs new deal with PSV
22 januari 2010 09:00
Zakaria Labyad has committed his future to PSV, after the youngster signed a new deal that will keep him at the Philips Stadium until the summer of 2012. “I would be really happy when I make my debut here. I still have a long way to go and will keep on working hard to reach my goals. I am delighted to have just signed a new deal”, said Labyad at the Philips Stadium on Thursday afternoon.
“Make my debut here”
16-year old Zakaria Labyad signed his contract at the stadium on Thursday afternoon, in the presence of his relatives and Head of Academy Jelle Goes. “I am delighted to have just signed a new deal”, he told PSV TV. “I would be really happy when I make my debut here. I’m looking forward to a long career at the Philips Stadium. I still have a long way to go and will keep on working hard to reach my goals”, said Labyad (9 March 1993), who joined PSV in the 2004/05 season from the amateur club Elinkwijk, where Ibrahim Afellay also started his career.
Goes: “This is only the beginning.”
Head of Academy Jelle Goes was clearly pleased that Labyad had signed a new long-term contract. “He frequently trains with the first-team squad and has been called up to the match squad, also for games in Europe. He joined us at the age of twelve and has taken a step forward. This is a major boost for the Academy. And this is only the beginning.” http://www.psv.nl/News/News-page/Zakaria-Labyad-signs-new-deal-with-PSV.htm
Other information. In my understanding, the agent of labyad is Constantin Dumitrascu, not his father. Or is this information wrong? This agent is one of the strongest, representing players like kun aguerro, Cavani and others. Do you think that he would commit a mistake like the one you said?
Para os sportinguistas. Segundo o Transfermarket, este Dumitrascu já representa, no Sporting, Elias, Labyad, Xandão e Cedric. Não gosto quando muitos jogadores começam a ser representados pelo mesmo agente. Depois começa a haver problemas…
I know for sure that there’s a rule that underage players can’t sign a contract that binds them to a club for more than three years. The previous (very amateuristic) PSV management apparently thought to be smart and to have found a way to sign Labyad for five years anyway. But as you say, the three year contract was always valid and it’s only the option to extend it with another two years that isn’t.
When I read this case, i always thought that PSV claimed the two extra years, but you talk about an automatic extension of one year. It's always so, when a player don't send a written notice her contract is extended for one year ?
And how works when the player don’t have clauses for extra years and the contract rules out ? It’s automatic extended for one year if the club and the player don’t send a written notice ?
Yes, this is always the case. It’s agreed upon in the labour agreement for professional football players. Two lawyers working for a Dutch lawfirm wrote an article about the Labyad case and concluded that PSV are right about this. That is, of course, if it is true that Labyad forgot to send this written notice.
This could be a problem for you too, of course. For Labyad to be eligible to play for Sporting, you need an ITC (International Transfer Certificate). Obviously, PSV won’t send this ITC to the FA since they’re so furious with Labyad and want to see financial compensation for him one way or another. I agree that the outcome of this mess will most likely be decided in courtroom which none of us should really want.
Because of this automatic one year extension, Labyad now has a contract until the 30th of June 2013. As I mentioned above, this is confirmed by two lawyers (among others) already. The FIFA/UEFA rules obviously agree that a contract has to be respected and you can’t just sign a contract at a club while still attached to another one.
I’m not sure about your first question. After last season, there were two national transfers that ran into this problem. But whether the transfer is national or international shouldn’t matter, as the result of this automatic extension is that Labyad still has a contract at PSV. As far as I know the bosman’s rule pre-contract can still be cancelled.
People who studied the case just a little bit mostly agree that Labyad still has a contract at PSV (The lawyers mentioned above). In the media, most articles etc. lean towards Labyad having a contract too.
The contract mentioned in that article was the one with the option to extend it for another two years. Labyad kicked out his former agent and replaced him by his father (horrible move).
You don’t have the ITC I mentioned above. Don’t get me wrong, I want to be rid of Labyad as soon as possible and get this soap over with, but I’m not sure what’s going to happen now. Our manager Brands at least said that he’s not going to send the ITC.
1. PSV can’t refuse sending the ITC (specially if they state it was because they got infuriated :lol:)
2. It seems no international transfer has ever failed before because of this 1½ month prior written notice.
3. The 1½ month prior written notice can’t apply in this case since PSV would need, in this case, to make a new contract with the player (since you can’t have an underaged player with a contract extending for more than three years), not “automatic renewal”, this isn’t possible, period.
And I quote FIFA rules:
2. The minimum length of a contract shall be from its effective date until the
end of the season, while the maximum length of a contract shall be fi ve years.
Contracts of any other length shall only be permitted if consistent with national
laws. Players under the age of 18 may not sign a professional contract for a
term longer than three years. [b][u]Any clause referring to a longer period shall not
be recognised.[/u][/b]
@PSV, the national football federation emits the ITC not the club.
Even if the Dutch football federation refuses to emit the ITC (in case they have the same interpretation you presented), FIFA can overrule the Dutch federation and emit the ITC themselves.
FIFA rules are well known. The Dutch Federation has to comply to FIFA rules. If the Dutch law doesn’t allow it then it becomes a situation between FIFA vs Dutch Federation (and Law). Although I doubt it will go that far.
Now, can you share any links that support the thesis you are presenting?
You mentioned there have been aborted transfers in the past due to this issue. Can you identify such transfers?
PSV refuse because Labyad still has a contract until 2013, not because they’re furious. They’re furious because Labyad signed a contract at Sporting despite having a contract at PSV. Don’t mix those up.
That doesn’t mean it can’t go wrong. Not many players forget to terminate that contract, so it hasn’t happened very often at all.
The agreement is that the details in the automatically extended contract are the same as the details in the original contract, so there’s no need to make a new contract. This is in the labour agreement for professional football players, so it is possible, period.
And as for your quote of the FIFA rules: I already said that the clause was not valid and therefore Labyad is not contracted to PSV for another 2 seasons (as was agreed upon in that clause).
The Dutch FA has to ask PSV for permission to send the ITC to the FIFA.
In this article and this one the two players I referred to earlier are mentioned. Their names are Tim Breukers and Dion Malone. As you can see, in the Netherlands this situation is already referred to as ‘pulling a Labyad’. I’m not sure if Google translate can help you understand the article, but the main point in both articles is that the players already signed a pre-contract at their new teams but the transfer was cancelled because the contract was extended by one year. I think that in Breukers’ case his old and new team went through with the deal after Breukers’ agent apologized for his mistake. Malone’s new team, who thought they signed the player for free, eventually did have to pay a transfer fee to acquire the player.
And this is the article published by the dutch law firm about the Labyad case. I hope Google translate can help you with that as well. If you need any help with translating (parts of) this article, just let me know and I’ll translate it to English for you.
Thanks for the links, indeed the contract extension is the issue according to the Dutch law.
However:
Of course the clause is valid, regarding the ITC, FIFA laws are the only valid legislation!
The Dutch FA is bound to FIFA rules and not the other way around.
FIFA is under no obligation to Dutch laws. Labyad is (was).
Labyad can be held responsible under the Dutch law, but from FIFA point-of-view, there was no obligation to meet the 15 May deadline, so I can’t see why the ITC can’t be emited.
If the Dutch FA doesn’t comply, then FIFA can overrule. Again, I doubt it will come to such an extreme situation.
I’m sorry, but what you say makes no sense at all.
As an example, here in Portugal, if the work law applyed to the football players, then any player could easily move out of a club, they would just need to send a notice to the employer (club) 1 month before going away.
As a rule of thumb, the regular work laws do not apply to football contracts, not in Portugal, not in the Netherlands and not in any other country. If it did, then it would be a mess due to the illegal underage workers. Is it legal in Netherlands to have underage workers?
