Andy Webster ruling set to herald a revolution to rival Bosman

Football may be about to experience another Bosman-like tremor after the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland yesterday brought clarity to Fifa’s infamous Article 17 and went some way to spelling the end for the game’s biggest transfer fees.

The specific case concluded in Lausanne was the long-running saga of Andy Webster, the Scotland defender, who was finally ordered to pay Heart of Midlothian a paltry £150,000 for walking out on the club for Wigan Athletic with a year remaining on his contract in August 2006.

The Webster case has absorbed Fifpro, the global players’ union, and is significant not for its own specific merits but for its wider implications. In effect, Fifa has established that a footballer is entitled unilaterally to terminate his contract with his club, even if it still has one, two, or sometimes three years left to run.

The clarification of yesterday’s Webster ruling could have a dramatic effect on the likes of Frank Lampard at Chelsea and Cristiano Ronaldo at Manchester United. Ronaldo, in particular, has recently signed a new, long-term deal at United, putatively tying him to Old Trafford until 2012, though under Article 17 he could walk away much earlier.
Related Links

* Webster's future put in Fifa's hands

* Webster awaits ruling before sealing move to Wigan

The controversy of the Webster case centred on Article 17, which was established two years ago as a bargaining tool between Fifa and the European Union to try to bring the rights of footballers into line with other EU workers. Under the rule, any footballer aged between 23 and 28 is entitled to walk away from a club, so long as he has served three years of a four or five-year contract.

But, more controversially, any player aged 28 or over can also now terminate his contract so long as he has served two years of its duration. Article 17, in effect, goes some way to abolishing huge transfer fees. For example, if a 29-year-old player wishes to leave one club for another – such as was the case with Thierry Henry last season – the only compensation due would be the value of his wages left on his contract.

The implications of Article 17 have been keenly pursued by two Scottish former footballers turned trade unionists: Tony Higgins, a representative of Fifpro, and Fraser Wishart, who leads the Scottish Professional Footballers’ Association. Higgins and Wishart were among the first to spot Article 17’s potential effects and they turned Webster’s bitter divorce from Hearts into a test case.

Webster, 25, had one year remaining of his four-year contract. Under the new rule, to the consternation of Hearts, he simply got up and left for Wigan, who then sent him on loan to Rangers in January 2007. Hearts appealed to Fifa and, amid some confusion, were awarded £625,000 in compensation last August, a sum that the player and Wigan would have been due to pay. Yesterday’s court heard Webster’s appeal against the sum of £625,000, which he claimed was too high and was in breach of Article 17. The CAS agreed with him.

In a statement, the CAS said: “We have determined that an amount of £150,000 has to be paid by Webster to Hearts as compensation for unilateral breach of contract.” Hearts had originally demanded £4 million-plus for the player. The Webster case is very much a cat among football’s pigeons.

“I have always said that this would be the most significant development in football since Bosman,” Higgins said yesterday. “The clubs will now have to reevaluate how they deal with players on longer-term contracts. And the most affected players will be the top 25 per cent. Basically, Article 17 gives footballers the sort of employee rights that anyone else would expect in the workplace. What it means is that any footballer can now serve notice on his club [in mid-contract] and move on to a new club.”

The clubs and their chief executives, however, may feel differently. Peter Lawwell, the Celtic chief executive, has already threatened to sue any player who breaks a contract, Article 17 or not.

“It appears that any player in the world may now have the right to break his contract – not the right to buy out his contract, but to walk away from it,” Lawwell said. “So let’s be clear. In our case, Celtic would sue any player who walks away under that scenario. If you are breaking an employment contract, you’ll be sued, and it is then the amount of damages which becomes the question.”

Possible movers and shakers after landmark verdict

Frank Lampard The Chelsea and England midfield player’s contract runs out in the summer of 2009. If he falls out with Avram Grant, the first-team coach, Lampard could leave Stamford Bridge at the end of this season by paying them compensation of a season’s wages - about £4 million.

Cristiano Ronaldo The Portuguese winker signed a new five-year contract last April that runs out in 2012. If Sir Alex Ferguson kicks a boot in his face, Ronaldo could pay Manchester United about £10 million and leave Old Trafford in the summer of 2010.

Michael Owen The England forward’s four-year contract runs out at the end of next season, so if he is frozen out by Kevin Keegan, Owen could pay Newcastle United about £5 million and leave St James’ Park for pastures new in the summer

Words by Kaveh Solhekol

Taken from timesonline.co.uk