Sub-clauses in football pound misery on football clubs

Luis Suarez

Some of the biggest names in football are at present embroiled in the world’s biggest transfer sagas. This is a topical issue which is engulfing the world of football at the moment. The complications of these transfers and various contract and clauses involved have been the talking point over the last 2 months.

Here I take a look at the Luis Saurez saga to explain the complications related to contracts and clauses.

Luis Suarez was by far the standout performer last year even though his silly antics on pitch ultimately proved costly for Liverpool FC. But this summer, it seems that he is hell-bent on manufacturing a move away from Liverpool, a club that has stuck by him through his downright ugly times. Luis Suarez is manufacturing a move to one of Liverpool’s rivals for Champions League football, Arsenal FC. Amongst all this hype and speculation an important issue has risen and that is: “What is the point of these complicated release, trigger, and buyout clauses in player’s contracts?”

As football has developed, and money is continually getting pumped into the game, the contracts have become far more complex to ensure that clubs have better chances of keeping their prized assets. But have they gone too far?

Well, keeping an eye on the ongoing developments at Anfield, it seems that, Liverpool is well in their right to hold on to their star player.

The troublesome “clauses”, they are a relatively (with “relatively” I mean in the last 10 years or so) new feature within contracts. Nowadays, there are a number of different clauses a football club can place in a player’s contract, for example some of the famous and more common ones are:

1. Release Clause 2. Buy Back Clause 3. Trigger Clause 4. Buyout Clause

In regard to the Luis Suarez and Liverpool case, the clause in dispute here is a “trigger clause”, as Arsenal have been bidding all summer for the player, with one bid triggering a clause where Liverpool had to tell the player of Arsenal’s concrete interest. But it didn’t suggest they have to sell the player outright, and by the looks of it, Liverpool have told Suarez of their intentions of keeping him at Anfield despite Arsenal setting off the trigger clause alarm.

The PFA chief Gordon Taylor has also had his say on the clauses within contracts nowadays, “These buyout clauses have caused no end of problems in the past and they continue to do so because of the way they were drafted at the time.”

Gordon Taylor reiterates the fact that Liverpool does not have to sell Saurez. He said,“If you are going to have a supposed buy-out clause it should be that, but it is different as it says if there is no qualification for the Champions League by Liverpool and if there is a minimum offer of £40million then the parties will get around the table to discuss things but it does not say the club has to sell.”

But the thing is that, these clauses have become far too complex and costly.

In one way, it can have a good effect on a club and player. For example, inserting a buy back clause into a player’s contract means that if he decides to move from a club, his previous club will have the first option of buying back the player.

A drawback to these types of clauses is that once the player is aware of a clause where the club has to notify the player or begin negotiations with another club, and if the club is one of the top clubs in the world, it can be hard for a player and the club to turn them down.

The labyrinthine nature of these clauses have surely given the concerned football clubs and their fans a chronic migraine to deal with.