World Football Postulant

Fiorentina striker Adrian Mutu’s star was on display last Wednesday when his club impressed in their Champions League qualifier against Slavia Prague. Opening the scoring with a trademark free kick goal, Mutu and La Viola gave reason to think the club capable of improving on last year’s fourth place finish in Serie A.

After such a promising start to their season, it is unfortunate to see legal matters overshadowing the star’s play on the field.

In a judgment handed down by FIFA last Wednesday, Mutu has been ordered to pay Chelsea £13.68 million.  The decision stems from Chelsea’s claims of lost revenue resulting for Mutu’s failed drug test four years ago.  Testing positive for cocaine use, the Romanian was given a seven month ban from FIFA and had his contract with Chelsea terminated.  As further punishment, he has been made to pay this fee.  Mutu and his lawyers say they will appeal.

A seven month ban in which he earned no salary is already pretty severe.  Mutu is and was a well compensated player.  He lost into the millions of pounds based on his drug use.  It is not like he has not already been punished.  The £13.68 million judgment is capped onto that ban and contract termination.

The reasoning behind the judgment is also curious.  Chelsea claims a loss of earnings as a result of Mutu’s drug-related ban.  Although they may have had very good evidence showing an exact amount they lost as a result of Mutu’s absence, I am skeptical.  Furthermore, in having Mutu’s contract voided, they had the striker’s salary freed up and could have replaced the player.  It is not like they were given no recourse for reclaiming any losses.  If they continued to lose money as a result of the affair, the club bares some responsibility.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport must decide whether to hear this case before they rule on it.  If they uphold FIFA’s decision, it will be unfortunate.  Mutu is a rich man, but £13.68 million is a lot of money.  The decision seems based more on athlete envy and anger that a gifted player would do such a thing than any kind of legal or ethical principle.  If any kind of ethics should rule this day, it should be the fear that some drug user will now hestitate in coming forward to get help out of fear of being the next Adrian Mutu.

Links
Mutu to battle ‘unjust’ fine
Mutu to challenge ‘inhumane’ fine
Mutu: An Inhumane Punishment
Mutu to appeal FIFA damages decision
DRC reaches decision on Mutu
Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea £13.8m
Mutu ordered to repay Chelsea £13.6m after sacking
Mutu ordered to pat Chelsea £13.68m
Chelsea awarded Mutu sum
Mutu ordered to pay £13.68 million to Chelsea
Mutu ordered to pay Chelsea a record £13.68 million in compensation
Mutu ordered to pay 13 million pounds compensation to Chelsea
FIFA order Mutu to pay Chelsea 17 million euros

The Court of Arbitration for Sport, to which Barcelona, Werder Bremen, and Schalke had appealed FIFA’s ruling compelling the release of U23-eligible players for the Olympics, has sided with the clubs, ruling teams are not required to release their players for participation in the Games.  The CAS said that clubs have no legal obligation to release the players since the Games do not fall within the agreed to International Match Calendar.

The CAS did, however, encourage all parties to continue working towards an amicable solution.  Shortly after the ruling, both Werder Bremen and Schalke granted their players - Diego and Rafinha, respectively - permission to play.  Barcelona has not said whether they intend to follow through on their previous plans to call Lionel Messi back from Beijing.  Argentine coach Sergio Batista has said he anticipates Messi will stay with the team after joining them late last week.

Though it ruled in the clubs favor, the CAS said it will not mandate non-released players be banned from playing in the games.  The court said that their ruling does not effect the eligibility of any players who have already been entered by their national sides.  That interpretation puts the burden for upholding this ruling not on the International Olympic Committee, FIFA, or the country’s federation.  The burden falls upon the players, who would be in breach of contract should they defy their clubs in the face of the CAS ruling.  With Diego and Rafinha having now received permission to play, the only footballer in danger of breaching contract is Messi.

Argentina opens their Olympic tournament tomorrow against the Côte d’Ivoire.  Likewise, Brazil plays tomorrow, against Belgium.  Barcelona wants Messi back for their Wednesday Champions League qualifying match with Wisla Krakow.  Schalke will take on Atlético Madrid without Rafinha.

Barcelona had previously agreed to let Messi join Argentina should Barça have a comfortable lead after the first leg of their qualifying tie.  That compromise solution was offered before the CAS ruling and would have seen Messi join Argentina for the medal round.  It is unclear whether Barcelona would be willing to grant such a release in light of the CAS’s decision.

While Messi’s Olympic hopes remain in the balance, his gold medal dreams have not been the biggest loser of the saga’s denouement; rather, it is the sport’s governing body that has taken the biggest hit.

In attempting to flex his organization’s muscle and force through a U23-policy for the Olympics that defied his own organization’s International Match Calendar, FIFA president Sepp Blatter unwittingly walked into a club-versus-country fight, misjudging his adversary in the process.  All along, it was apparently that FIFA had overreached it power (and the tacit agreement it held with clubs) when it compelled player releases for a tournament that was not taking place in a release period.  It should not have been a surprise that clubs fought the ruling, nor should FIFA have been caught off guard that the CAS upheld a club view that relied on agreed-to timelines over FIFA’s logic of custom and spirit.  While it is disappointing that the Olympics have fallen so far in esteem that individual football clubs feel justified in withholding players from the tournament, the regulations backed club claims.

There was always a chance that the CAS would rule with FIFA and uphold tradition, but FIFA should have known the clubs would balk.  The European Club Association had been itching for a battle ever since it was late showing up to 6+5’s funeral.  The ECA was going to fight to the end, no matter what.  More than for questioning the Olympic ideal or maintaining control over a few players, the ECA saw this issue as one that spoke to the heart of who controls the footballing world.  To the ECA, the clubs have control.  In the fight to affirm that control, a fight the ECA was formed to win, the clubs have won Round 1.

Perhaps Blatter and the similarly inclined UEFA president Michel Platini will tread lightly next time they wish to butt heads with the clubs, seeing that this first battle was never about the players.  Werder Bremen and Schalke’s easy about-faces on Diego and Rafinha showed that.  It was about Blatter overstepping.  The next battle could be about a Platini-pushed debt-plan or one of Blatter’s club-controlling player restrictions.  The next battle could also be waged for Platini or Blatter’s jobs, with the clubs exerting pressure on their home federations to start looking out for the local interests in addition to contemplating which nation gets a major tournament.

The CAS’s ruling not only rebuffed Blatter and FIFA on the Olympics, it rebuffed the whole organization and marginalized it power by backing the clubs.  The clubs now know they have a track to follow in restraining FIFA.  That Blatter would ever let this battle come to this point was a huge tactical error.  Now FIFA’s lack of power is evident, splashed across every football site in the world.  Before it tripped into this fight,  FIFA’s impotence was a topic for message board conversation and football theorists with excessive time on their hands.  Had Blatter not engaged in this beguiling act of hubris and stuck to the letter of the law - or, better yet, worked with and not over the clubs - FIFA would today be stronger for having brokered a solution.

But today they are weaker, their most dangerous adversary is stronger, and the organization is left to fire verbal salvos referencing spirit and custom.  Even in that vein they have ceded the high road to Werder and Schalke, who have magnanimously released their players.  FIFA, in contrast, remains petulant.

Quotes
“The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) has upheld the appeals filed by FC Schalke 04, SV Werder Bremen and FC Barcelona against the decision issued on 30 July 2008 by the Single Judge of the Fifa’s Players’ Status Committee that consequently has been set aside in its entirety.” - CAS
“The Olympic Football Tournament Beijing 2008 is not included in the Co-ordinated Match Calendar and there is no specific decision of the Fifa Executive Committee establishing the obligation for the clubs to release players under 23 for this tournament.” - CAS
“The requirements to justify a legal obligation of clubs to release their players for the Football Tournament Beijing 2008 on the basis of customary law are not met.” - CAS
“I’m calm and confident about this because I have spoken with the player and know what [Messi] is thinking. The player is going to make it clear to Barcelona that he wants to stay here.” - Batista
“In view of FIFA’s recommendation made to the clubs to release their players as well as of the Olympic spirit, the CAS call upon the goodwill and good sense of FIFA and the clubs to find a reasonable solution with regard to players who wish to represent their country in the Olympic Games.” - CAS
“We are confident and hopeful that [Messi] will remain here with the team for the whole tournament.” - Batista
“Fifa is surprised and disappointed by this decision, but we respect it.” - Blatter
“I regret that the CAS has not taken the Olympic spirit into consideration.” -  Blatter
“The Olympic Football Tournaments are a unique opportunity for a player as they are high-level competitions that give everyone involved - most notably young players - the chance to gain international experience that will stand them in good stead for the future.  It stands to reason, therefore, that it is not only the player and his national team who can benefit from such an experience, but also his club.” - Blatter
“I do not want to go into the legal side of all this, but I do know that [Messi] will be playing with us for the entire championship.” - Batista
“Theoretically the clubs could ask their players to go back to Europe because they would be entitled to do so.  And if the players do not come back there could be a case of a breach of contract.” - Matthieu Reeb, secretary, CAS
“It is now the moment for everyone to sit at the table and find a reasonable solution.  Of course, this could affect the tournament and it’s in the interest of nobody to destroy what could be an extraordinary tournament this year. But this is a matter for clubs, FIFA and the players to decide.” - Reeb
“We could have done with our strongest squad for these matches. We firmly believe, however, that unfortunately there is absolutely no point in bringing Rafinha back one day before our opening game.” - Andreas Muller, general manager, Schalke
“All the frustration and the huge disappointment he would feel, coupled with the exertions of travelling, would not in our opinion have put him in a position to play to the best of his ability.” - Muller

Links
Court blocks Messi from playing
Clubs win Olympic appeal
Fifa disappointed with CAS decision
FIFA disappointed by CAS decision
Messi wants to stay with Argentina - Batista
Clubs win appeal; Messi wants to play
Barcelona to decide Messi fate
German clubs release players for Olympics
Clubs U-Turn Over Olympic Brazilians
Blatter ‘Surprised & Disappointed’
Olympics: CAS steps in to stop players heading to Beijing
Trio wins Olympics appeal
European clubs win Olympic appeal

After FIFA ruled today that clubs must release their U23 eligible players, Barcelona striker Lionel Messi will leave his club to join the Argentina Olympic team. In the interim, Barcelona will join in Schalke and Werder Bremen’s appeal of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, hoping FIFA’s ruling will be overturned. If that happens, Barça expects Messi to return. The striker has indicated he would, if such a ruling came down.

What the clubs are seeking is a ruling from the CAS that the players are in breach of their contracts by not reporting to the clubs.  Say the ruling goes their way.  Then what?  The ball goes into the player’s court, and while Messi seems willing to return to Barcelona should their claim be upheld, Schalke’s Rafinha and Bremen’s Diego have been willing to defy their clubs throughout the month.  Having gone absent without their release when the Brazil Olympic team went to Asia, what’s to say they will just return if the CAS says so in light of FIFA’s decision?

The clubs could cancel their contracts, but what good would that do?  Players as young as Diego and Rafinha are undoubtedly slightly underpaid in their deals.  Having proved themselves capable players in the Bundesliga, a small, profitable bidding war will start should the players hit the market.  Neither Schalke nor Bremen should want to let them go.

They could fine the players for being in breach of contract, but will that affect any kind  of remedy or change?

The clubs should be less concerned with the individual players and more with FIFA and the remedies at their disposal.  To their knowledge, they are only obligated to release players during the international match calendar’s release periods.  The Olympics fall outside one of those periods, yet clubs are still having players taken from them.  Instead of seeking to punish the players, let them play in the Olympics and instead start acting to limit the power of FIFA to unilaterally change these rules.

There is a  fine line between fighting the ruling, changing the system and aggravating your players.  The clubs have done a precarious  job of walking that line throughout this ordeal.  As this fight reaches its climax, clubs much be careful not to reach too far.  In the end, they need to let the players go and never let FIFA forget that they did.  In the four year between now and London, start pushing back against FIFA’s  ability to capriciously make similar decisions.

Quotes

“I hope [Diego] comes back to Bremen immediately because he has an agreement with Werder.  If he does not stick to it, then there will be consequences from the club.” - Torsten Frings, midfielder, Werder Bremen

Links

Messi heads to China after FIFA ruling
Barcelona may appeal Messi Olympic ruling
Frings Urges Diego To Return
CAS called in to settle Olympic dispute
Bremen and Schalke in new Olympics appeal
Bremen,  Schalke to fight FIFA’s Olympics ruling

FIFA ruled today that clubs must release their U23-eligible players for the Olympics in one of the most anticlimactic, predictable, and redundant pieces of news this summer.  This marked the third time that FIFA, in some form, had reiterated the stance that it had always held.  FIFA’s sanctioning the Olympics and, of course, is going to maintain its value.

Their reiteration does nothing to change the minds of Bundesliga clubs like Werder Bremen and Schalke who continue to maintain players need not be released.  The next step for them is to back-up their threat to appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  The clubs had already filed an appeal, but the CAS put it aside to wait for FIFA’s final decision.  It’s an appeal that seems unlikely to work, as the CAS is likely to nod towards FIFA and the stature of the Olympics, never mind that the clubs technically have a point.  The Olympics are not part of the International Match Calendar.

The best case scenario out of all this would have been for FIFA to not mandate the clubs but the clubs release their players.  That way, the issue doesn’t turn into a power play while those players who are selected to play get to participate.  The clubs and FIFA could then start working to ensure a potential confrontation is avoided for the Great Britian games in 2012.  As is, that confrontation is happening now.

The only club who may change their plans to withhold a player release is Barcelona, who seemed to be putting more weight in FIFA’s decision than the German clubs were.  Still, if Barça was so differential towards FIFA, Lionel Messi would be in Beijing now.  As is, he trains with Barcelona.

With the ruling today, FIFA risks looking more inept that they have throughout this process, remarkable considering the brashness with which the Bundesliga clubs and Barcelona have disregarded their rulings.  If, after taking this extra time to consider the issue and issue a dramatic, ultimate declaration, the clubs still defy FIFA, what does that say about the governing body?

The ball is now in the Barcelona’s court, as well as the European Club Association’s.  Expect them to persist in their views.  Barcelona seems willing to let Messi leave temporarily with the expectation he will return if a CAS appeal goes in their favor.

Quotes

“The single judge of the Players’ Status Committee, Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), decided today, 30 July 2008, that the release of players under the age of 23 for the Men’s Olympic Football Tournament Beijing 2008 is mandatory for all clubs. Previously, on 29 July 2008, the FIFA Emergency Committee also took a decision in the same sense.” - FIFA
“The single judge determined that the international match calendar is not of relevance in establishing whether clubs are obliged to release players for the Men’s Olympic Football Tournament.” - FIFA
“The single judge stated that taking part in the Olympic Games is a unique opportunity for all athletes of any sporting discipline, and that it would not be justifiable to prevent any player younger than 23 from participating in such an event if his representative team had qualified.” - FIFA
“I am waiting to see what FIFA says and, if it says I don’t have to go, I won’t go.  If it says I have to go, I will go without awaiting the decision of the CAS, because that would be too long for my teammates and squad management to have to wait.” - Messi
“Barcelona continues with its stance of not wanting to let me go and I understand it.  But I also think they have to understand that my dream is to take part in the Olympic Games with the national team.” - Messi
“FC Barcelona will shortly present before the CAS, or Court of Arbitration for Sport, an appeal against this decision in which it will request the ruling be rescinded and that proceedings be completed with the maximum speed possible.” - Barcelona
“At this stage we are at an impasse. We are going to meet with Messi to take the most convenient decision for both sides.” - Joan Laporta, president, Barcelona
“We understand it is very complex to retain a player. Messi will do what the rules say and I understand these will be interpreted in favor of Barcelona by CAS.” - Laporta
“From the beginning I’ve said that I want to play for my national team and I’ve never had problems until now.” - Messi

Links

FIFA rule clubs mist release U23 Olympic stars
Barcelona must release Messi for Beijing
Barcelona must release Messi for Beijing
Clubs must release U-23s for Olympics, says Fifa
Barca may contest Olympics ruling
FIFA demand Messi released for Olympics
Fifa rules against clubs for Olympics

Tomorrow, FIFA will make a ruling as to whether clubs will be compelled to release under-23 players for the Beijing Olympics in two weeks.  The ruling will from 20 days after FIFA ruled on whether clubs will be compelled to release under-23 players for the Beijing Olympics.

If you felt those two sentences redundant, consider it a comment on FIFA’s approach to this issue.  The governing body has already ruled once.  Last week, the body’s president, Sepp Blatter, reiterated the ruling via a statement, effectively ruling for a second time on the same issue.  Now, FIFA is set to make a third declaration on the matter, and unless the organization says something different, tomorrow’s statement will be as ineffectual as last week’s stance.

Whether you think FIFA will rule differently tomorrow than it did on July 10 depends on how important you think the events of the last week have been.  Clubs continue to fight some player released - most notably, Werder Bremen with Diego, Schalke with Rafinha, and Barcelona with Lionel Messi.  Diego and Rafinha have left their clubs without permission, prompting the clubs to threaten an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  The European Club Association has issued as statement in support of clubs withholding permission, leaving FIFA’s rulings in a precarious position.  What good are an organization’s rulings if there is no means of enforcement?

That may be te reason why FIFA changes its tune.  With one week of the scenario having played out since Rafinha and Diego left their teams, FIFA may have read the writing on the wall.  Rather than make an unenforceable ruling that starts a fight it may not want with the clubs, FIFA may need to soften its stance.  FIFA may wish to advise clubs to release players while allowing for squads to retain players who are regulars in teams that will have competitions.  It’s a ruling that would ceded the issue to the clubs while maintaining FIFA’s view on what should be happening.

It is weak, but this may not be a fight FIFA wants right now.  They are getting a bit blind-sided by the clubs making such a big deal of these releases.  FIFA anticipated the releases to be a formality.  Not having done the due process of properly amending the international match calendar to include the Olympics, FIFA does not have a leg to stand on.

That this announcement has been delayed by a day may indicate some reconsideration on FIFA’s part.  There is a good chance there will be some kind of placating measure taken.  FIFA is not in a position to win this battle and needs to realize it, preparing itself better for future confrontations with the clubs.

Links

FIFA to announce final club decision on Wednesday
FIFA delay announcing Games release decision
FIFA delay announcing Games release decision

FIFA has just released a statement via its website saying the Players’ Status Committee will decide whether clubs are obligated to release age-eligible players for the Beijing Olympics.  No timeline was given for a decision, though the governing body said parties will be notified “within very short notice.”

The Players’ Status Committee consists of eleven representatives from different member countries.  Its task is to define and disambiguate issues concerning player eligibility.  The Olympic issue has fallen at its feet as clubs seek one final recourse within FIFA so that key players, like Barcelona’s Lionel Messi, will be allowed to stay with their clubs.

Unless the committee overturns the interpretation which requires players to be released for the Olympics, this step does not good.  Clubs are entrenched in their decision and, even if these players end up in Beijing, the clubs are not going to sign off on the releases.  Some clubs are already threatening to go beyond FIFA to the Court of Arbitration for Sport and, if the ECA’s statement of two days ago is any indication, the new union of clubs will support such measures.

If the committee does overturn FIFA’s previous interpretation, the organization will (ironically) save face by not entering into a battle where they will potentially lose.  The last thing FIFA needs is to be put in a situation where their lack of power (in comparison to the clubs) is highlighted.  While contradicting July 10’s ruling will throw some egg on themselves and president Sepp Blatter, it will save face.

Links

Single judge to decide on club’s obligations
Players’ Status Committee

I spent a good part of last night completely redoing the FIFA-ECA article. Thankfully, Trevor at American Soccer Reader has allowed me to post it there. Usually I stay within the cozy confines of the Premiership, but he’s allowed me to branch out a bit for this piece. The link is here, and I’ve retitled it “Olympics Represent FIFA’s First ECA Test.” Ah, to be your own editor!

The article posted there ended up having little resemblance to what I posted here yesterday. It’s much more flushed out, giving more background on the ECA, G-14, the Olympic tournament, amongst other things.

As always, I encourage you to visit that site. Trevor’s got a lot of good things going on over there, including guest blogs from a number of U.S.-based professional footballers.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter has reiterated club’s obligation to release U23-eligible players for next month’s Beijing Olympic Games. His support for the governing body’s ruling comes as a number of Bundesliga clubs along with Barcelona seek to withhold their players from the games. Clubs say that the Games taking place outside any international window defined by the FIFA calendar. FIFA has ruled that the Olympics are a FIFA sanctioned event and club should uphold the standard of previous Olympiads in releasing their eligible, selected players.

Despite this ruling, some clubs continue to fight to keep their players outside the games in what is framing to be the first major battle between FIFA and the European Club Association (ECA). Barcelona is withholding Lionel Messi, who is elected to remain with his club. Brazil’s Diego and Rafinha have defied their club’s orders and joined up with the Brazilian team despite having no release from their clubs, Werder Bremen and Schalke. Today, ECA president Karl-Heinz Rummenigge said the club have no legal obligation to release players. Rummenigge is also president of a Bundesliga club, Bayern Munich.

In the face of that interpretation, Blatter has reiterated FIFA’s view, completing the stage for the face-off. In hindsight, we should have seen this confrontation coming weeks ago. There is no way the Bundesliga and the rest of the club footballing world would have picked such a relatively small fight without the intention of backing it fully. While I have questioned all along whether it was worth the club’s effort to try and keep players from Beijing, I’ve come to think this part of a bigger plan. The ECA is looking for an issue where the new organization can flex their considerable muscle. It’s first meetings came too late to hit 6+5 head-on (and it turned out no help was needed in maiming that measure), but this was the next issue. That they’ve elected to tackle it foreshadows an acrimonious relationship between ECA and FIFA that will see clubs try to reclaim some of the control they’ve lost of the footballing world.

It’s a clear warning shot for Blatter and UEFA president Michel Platini, both of whom have become far too ambitious in delving into matters the clubs hold dear. Like what they do or not, clubs still control a vast majority of the sport’s money. A confrontation with a united, committed ECA is a fight the governing bodies can not win. While Diego and Rafinha may go to Beijing and be welcomed back to their teams, clubs are making their point clear. The next time something like this comes up - FIFA trying to make ad hoc rules as to when players are committed to national teams - the ECA will fight.

Quotes

“The release of players below the age of 23 has always been mandatory for all clubs. The same principle shall apply for Beijing 2008.” - Blatter
“It would appear to be against the spirit of the Olympic regulations to hinder players under the age of 23, who are actually the core of the squads participating in the Men’s Olympic Football Tournament, to take part in the final phase of the event.” - Blatter
“We’re a little bit frustrated by the fact that [Jô's] gone to the Olympics, ideally we’d have preferred him to stay with us, but we have to respect that.” - Mark Hughes, manager, Manchester City FC
“As the Olympics are not included in the harmonised International Match Calendar, the obligation to release players for national team matches according to the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players does not apply.” - Rummenigge
“The ECA suggests that FIFA president Sepp Blatter should define clear guidelines and regulations in consultation with the IOC regarding subsequent Olympic Games, once the current framework for the Olympic football tournament expires.” - Rummenigge
“[The ECA supports] all clubs that currently face losing important players.” - Rummenigge
“Even if Mr Blatter is president of FIFA, his remarks are still purely arbitrary. It doesn’t change our view. We’ll wait for the CAS ruling. FIFA is forcing clubs and players into breach of contract.” - Andreas Müeller, sporting director, Schalke
“As in previous letters from FIFA, president Blatter bases his comments in principle on custom and practice, and the special charter of the Olympic tournament. But in the view of our federations, the DFB and the DFL, this letter has no binding character whatsoever.” - Klaus Allofs, sporting director, Werder Bremen

Links

Blatter reminds clubs of rules
Barcelona Plan to Keep Messi - Report
Blatter: Release of U23s for Beijing mandatory
Fifa - player release mandatory
Blatter: Clubs must release players for Olympics
Blatter: Let Messi Go!
Blatter tells clubs to release under-23s for Olympics
Blatter reaffirms Olympic obligation
Clubs must release players for Olympics - FIFA

As of yesterday, Werner Bremen thought midfielder Diego would be joining them for preseason training, rejecting the Brazil Olympic team in the process. One week ago, when Bremen told Diego they would deny his release, he said that he would respect the club’s decision.

Now, as Brazil leaves for the Olympic games, it looks like the talented midfielder has changed his tune. He has skipped his club training assignments to meet up with his national side in Paris, where the team will leave for Beijing today. Diego follows Schalke’s Rafinha in defying his club’s wishes and joining up with his Olympic team.

Schalke is now considering legal action against Rafinha for breach of contract, a move that is unlikely to work considering the role FIFA plays in this saga. FIFA has said clubs are obligated to release U23 players, and while the clubs can appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, it is unlikely the CAS will look favorably on clubs’ defiance of FIFA while relying on other FIFA regulations. You can not pick and choose which FIFA regulations and ruling to follow.

Whether Werner Bremen take Diego’s absence to such extremes, or fine him 25,000 euros per day as Schalke is prepared to fine Rafinha, is unknown. Bremen is said to be disappointed and considering referral to the sports tribunal, but at some point these clubs have to realize how ridiculous this is. They may have a point. These players have a contract that does not explicitly include allowance for Olympic service. But what are the costs and benefits of this solution, of going to court? The benefit is the marginal improvement over a handful of games from the player’s replacement to the player. In a sport like football, where there is as much of a distribution of responsibility as in any team sport, the benefits of improving one player to another sometimes don’t get seen until you add up the small, per-game benefits of a while season. The benefits are at best small.

The costs, however, seem much bigger. How are Diego or Rafinha supposed to look favorably on their clubs after this? How if the Brazilian Federation supposed to recommend a player choose Werner Bremen or Schalke?

The clubs may feel like they need to take a principled stand on the invasion of FIFA into their club’s business, but the timing is all off. This stand should have been made far before the Olympic teams were announced. Clubs should have been proactive in alerting FIFA to the issue and not take a reactive stance. Because they have waiting until they brink and are resorting to measures like tribunals, the clubs seen tyrannical.

If the clubs really feel Rafinha and Diego are in breach of contract and are so unreliable, just cancel the players’ contract.  I’m sure Rafinha and Diego will be fine.  Of course, neither club will do that, which speaks to the value each player has for their club.

Quotes

“[Rafinha] has breached his contract at Schalke.” -  Andreas Muller, sporting director, Schalke
“If the CBF (Brazil Football Federation) does not respect our wish, we’ll file legal action at the CAS.” - Muller
“We support the protest and we share the opinion of the clubs that they are not obliged to release players …” - German Football Federation (DFB)
“Diego feels obliged to join Brazil’s team in Paris. He fears not showing up would jeopardise his future career for Brazil.” - Klaus Allofs, sporting director, Werner Bremen

Links

Diego defies Bremen ban
Rafinha, Diego join Brazil without permission
Diego defies Werner orders, heads for Olympics
Diego Off to Bejing, Schalke Still Fuming
Schalke file Rafinha complaint in Olympics row
Werner Bremen in legal action against Olympic runaway Diego

The Olympic football tournament in Beijing, which a short time ago became a reason for optimism amongst ardent fans, now seems to be more trouble than it is worth. In its most recent form, the Olympic tournament has been overlooked, either because of general neglect from football federations, recent age restrictions designed to give the tournament some meaning, or a qualifying format that makes the event look less World Cup and more international grab bag. Those feelings were on the brink of being put aside this year as teams like Argentina and Brazil named all their top U23 talent to their side while taking full advantage of their three overage slots. While it was disappointing to see nations like Italy decline the option to do the same, seeing players like Ronaldinho in action always brings a little more light to a competition.

That optimism, however, has been tempered by the controversy some clubs have brought regarding the selection of their players. Barcelona tried to stand in the way of Ronaldinho going and are currently asking FIFA to allow them to withhold Lionel Messi. Bundesliga side Werner Bremen has ignored a FIFA mandate to let U23 midfielder Diego play for Brazil, while Champions League-qualifying Schalke 04 is doing the same with defender Rafinha. One of these players, however, is ignoring his club in the same way his club is ignoring FIFA.

Rafinha isn’t known to most football fans. He is a 22-year-old full back for Schalke in the Bundesliga who saw his greatest exposure during last season’s Champions League when his club gave Barcelona a surprisingly tough go of it in the quarterfinals. A plays on the right and, as is the case with all Brazilian wing backs, has an attacking flair. He’s scored four goals in three year career at Schalke, already accumulating 92 appearances.

Today, Rafinha failed to show for training at Schalke, a no-show he said would happen.  Instead, he will be going to Beijing with his country’s team in defiance of his club.  Schalke’s interpretation of the situtation, an interpretation shared by Werner Bremen, is that the Olympic falls outside the international part of the FIFA calendar that divides the year between club and nation.  Despite FIFA ruling last week that U23 players must be permitted to play in the Games, the Bundesliga clubs are defiant.  Schalke, like Barcelona, want their strongest club on the field for Champions League third round qualifying in mid-August.  Bremen is just being obstinate.

Seeing the stance Schalke and Werner Bremen have taken, other clubs within the Bundesliga are refusing release of their players.  Hertha Berlin has refused release of Serbian striker Marko Pantelic.  Hamburg has resisted the release of Belgium defender Vincent Kompany.  Bayer Leverkusen will not let Constant Djakpa play for the Ivory Coast.  Bayern Munich was going to deny defender Breno’s release, but they have granted it in light of his reserve status with the club.

It is unclear what will happen to Rafinha, if anything.  Schalke can only go so far with this.  Even a fine is unlikely to hold in light of FIFA’s ruling.  Rafinha is so talented and so important tot he club that they are just going to have to tough it out in Champions League qualifying without him.  Unlike Barcelona, they are almost assured to have a difficult time breaking out of the qualifying stages and into the group stage, though they will stand a good chance with or without Rafinha.

Why Barcelona is fighting so hard to keep Lionel Messi from Beijing is much more curious.  Barcelona is deep in strikers, though Messi is clearly their best.  They are going to be favored for their Champions League tie and should expect to move into the group stage even without their best player.  Messi has declared his desire to play for Argentina in Beijing and, having speculated about a move to Serie A at some point in the future, could find himself unsettled given too much club inference.  This could turn into a mild risk, little reward for Barcelona.

What is the Catalan club’s motivation?  Perhaps this is a chance to display some independence from FIFA, something the mega-clubs are always willing to do.  Perhaps they really do believe they can not win their Champions League qualifying tie without him (which would be quiet an indictment of the club’s status).  It’s also possible that this is a chance for embattled president Joan Laporta to exhibit some strength in the face of a another reelection in September.

In this age of increasing player freedoms (and demands), the clubs need to continue shifting their views from a world where they are in control to one where player talent and attitude needs to be cultivated.  Barcelona, Schalke, and Werner Bremen may be giving their players reason to think their clubs the wrong place for those talents.

Quotes
“Rafinha is not here, but what should I do? I cannot lead him around in handcuffs.” - Andreas Müller, Schalke general manager
“He’s our player and has a long-term contract with us.  This has now gone to an entirely different level than a player coming back from holiday a couple of days late.” - Müeller
“[Pantelic] came to see me again and I explained to him that the interests of the team had priority now at the start of the season.” -  Dieter Hoeness, manager, Hertha Berlin
“I am very pleased that [Djapka] showed a lot of understanding for our situation, which surely was not easy for him.” -  Rudi Voeller, manager, Bayern Leverkuesen
“Of course I would have liked to have taken part in the Olympics.  It was a dream of mine, but Werder don’t want to let me go and I have accepted their reasons for doing so and will now concentrate on the upcoming season.” - Diego
“We expect that Fifa will issue a statement saying that we are right.” -  Pep Guardiola, manager, Barcelona
“Barca have Olympic spirit, but also that of the Champions League. We don’t want to get into any argument with AFA president Julio Grondona.” - Laporta
“We have a case and we will fight for Messi to playing the Champions League qualifier because he should be with us. We have let FIFA know this.” - Txiki Regiristain, sporting director, Barcelona

Links

Rafinha Faces Schalke Wrath
Rafinha blows off Schalke camp for Olympics
Schalke’s Rafinha goes AWOL
Schalke’s Brazil defender Rafinha goes absent
Rafinha to defy Schalke over Olympic inclusion
Diego agrees to skip Olympic Games
Diego accepts Werner’s Olympic stance
Werner refuse to release Brazil’a Diego for Olympics
Messi to Olympics?
Messi waits on Olympics decision
Messi links up with barca despit Olympics
Messi included in final Argentina squad
FIFA threaten Messi with ban
Barca don’t want Messi in Olympics
Barca demand Messi
Barcelona insist Messi should miss Olympics