(Reuters) - Soccer's international players' union FIFpro are likely to take the European Commission to Court over new rules governing soccer transfers, saying they infringe players' rights, and break European law.

"We are still thinking about it but really we have no other choice," FIFpro Secretary-General, Theo van Seggelen, told Reuters on Wednesday. He said the group would present its case to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg which decided the 1995 Bosman case outlawing transfer fees for out-of-contract players.

FIFpro stormed out of talks between world soccer body FIFA, Europe's UEFA and the EC, but the three other bodies went ahead and set rules in FIFpro's absence.

Monday's agreement in Brussels ended months of wrangling over the way football is run as the European Union (EU) sought to bring players and their employees in line with European labour laws. But the main sticking points, Van Seggelen said, were the so-called 'sporting sanctions' -- a possible six-month suspension for players deemed in breach of contract -- and the treatment of young players.

"The average career of a footballer at the moment lasts 10 years. Six months is too long. Even one month is too long," he said. "We will only accept economic sanctions -- never these sporting sanctions."

For players under 23, clubs would still have to pay large sums in compensation which Van Seggelen said was wrong. "That is totally against the Bosman ruling. Any lawyer will tell you that. But it's also a serious block to the movement of young players."

Another stumbling block was the three-year protection period for players in their prime (age 23-28), which Van Seggelen said should be reduced to two years. "This goes against the freedom of labour and the liberty of the player to choose his club. It's much too long."

Not only players, but Clubs too would likely be up in arms if the rules were approved by FIFA's executive at a Buenos Aires meeting on July 5, Van Seggelen said. "It will rain complaints if they introduce this law," he said. He anticipated at least 20 cases per country where footballers could end up in court, fighting for their rights as set out in European law.

What a buggar's muddle - at this rate Alan Shearer could be drawing his pension before Freddie sanctions the signing of any new Toon players.

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Answers

Hey it must be hard on 20grand aweek playing a game, talk about 3rd world poverty.

I suppose they want us daft bastards to cough up even more?

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

The thing I still can't grasp is all this discussion about what the Players Union will or won't accept by way of sanctions against players who are found to be in breach of Contract.

My possibly incomplete understanding of this is that for the rest of us mere mortals, a Contract freely entered into is a legally binding agreement between two parties, and any proven breach is subject to the full weight of the Law of the Land.

Why should footy players be treat any different? Anyone help me here?

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

Simple, really, Clarky. The players union want to do whatever they want, whenver they want, clubs and contracts be damned.

That statement condemning sporting sanctions says it all really. ""We will only accept economic sanctions -- never these sporting sanctions." In other words, we make so damn much money, we'll never miss a few thousand pounds/francs/d-mark, but we WOULD miss playing.

Thick eejits. wouldn't be much of a penalty if it didn't hurt them!

-- Anonymous, March 07, 2001

I don't think you're on your own in not fully understanding what's going on here, Clarky. In my maybe over-simplistic way of looking at things, all they need to do is to include in the contract, a standard phrase specifying the period of notice required by each party, and make the period something like 3 or 4 or whatever years, along with whatever other bribes they need to get the guy to sign.

It seems to me that a transfer within the period would then be reduced to negotiating how much it would cost to buy out the contract, not the player.

What is it I'm overlooking, or, more likely, unaware of, that makes something as straightforward turn into the dog's breakfast we're now likely to end up with ?

I made the point on another thread that the current football system, to my way of thinking, seems to be nothing more than glorified head hunting.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

I can see the players' union's point. I have a contract of work, if I break it I get the sack but I'm not banned from working for anyone for 6 months.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001

In some businesses you can be stopped from working for a period of time. Non-compete type deals. Usually if you're an exec, or financial-type.

-- Anonymous, March 08, 2001