Why Chelsea’s let off will only encourage the big boys
The appeals process is a good thing. It’s something that a civilized society should require, and it’s a shining beacon of fairness in an otherwise cruel and morally bankrupt world. (sorry, I probably shouldn’t of read that Hardy & Hemmingway collection last night) The problem with the appeals process recently however, and without trying to come across as some kind of reactionary fascist, is that it works too often. Almost everything is reduced on appeal and when it comes to football, that percentage is increased to everything. Footballers and clubs, especially the bigger ones with the flashier, shinier haired lawyers, are constantly being brought up for some offense or other, only for it to be completely reversed on appeal. Sometimes these things are justified – lord knows the FA are hardly the fittest bunch of people to hand out appropriate punishments – but sometimes they halt progress. Sometimes examples should be made, even if they are, ostensibly, a little unfair. Eduardo’s dive against Celtic earlier this season for example. Horrendously unfair to single out one player’s rather innocuous attempt to win a penalty when the Drogbas, Ronaldos and Gerrards of this world can get away with it on a weekly basis. But never the less, here was an opportunity to set an example. Not a particularly cruel example (he wasn’t being sent to Siberia or water boarded) but an example that would send a message – We’ll get tough on diving retroactively until it’s stamped out! – But alas, Arsenal’s lawyer came up with a farcically complex CSI style forensic argument and the punishment was dropped on appeal. Opportunity knocks, opportunity’s lost.
Earlier this season the authorities were given another chance to send a message with the emergence of dodgy dealings in the Gael Kakuta case. A promising French forward had been tapped up and poached by Chelsea during the autumn of 2009 and the authorities came down hard, banning Chelsea from any further transfer activity for the next 18 months. They had broken the law – why not? Well, something about human rights and free movement of labor, which is all very well and good for destitute immigrants struggling to earn a crust but doesn’t really apply when talking about millionaire (or soon to be millionaire) footballers and clubs operating just outside the realms of business decency. You can argue until you’re blue in the face that, philosophically speaking, the chair I’m sitting on might not actually be there, until eventually I break a leg off and hit you with it until your beret falls off. Common sense shouldn’t bend to technicalities. Once again ostensibly the consistent, and therefore fair thing had been done – technically speaking – but as with all things in life, love and law, individual circumstances, and the eventual consequences, are the most important factor. An important message could have been sent out if the initial punishment had been upheld. Kakuta’s interests were safe regardless as no one was forcing him to be deported back to Lens and since Chelsea had in fact broken a footballing law, they couldn’t have seriously grumbled too much simply because others had gotten away with it in the past. They had basically escaped punishment via a loophole intended to protect the vulnerable. Which isn’t actually very fair at all.
And the message this appeal victory sends out is a simple “as you were”. To which the executives at the big clubs all accused of such similar dealings in the past – Chelsea again, Man Utd, Man City and many others – will have no doubt nodded and winked with a contented smirk and thought “alright then” as they went about their daily routine of drowning kittens. Many of these such cases have mitigating circumstances themselves and are ripe with hypocrisy. The notion of French clubs who’ve harvested their youngsters from West Africa bemoaning the loss of them to a bigger club is a bit like a bully getting upset that another bigger bully has stolen the lunch money he stole off someone else. Regardless of all this, the continuous get out clause of “oh well someone else did it first” isn’t helping things. Someone somewhere along the line should get it in the neck, and due to the very fact that so many have gotten away with it for so long, this would – relatively speaking – be unfair. Yet of course it also wouldn’t, as laws have been broken and unfair conduct has occurred and until someone finally gets brought up on it and not exonerated eventually because they have a good lawyer or are holding your kittens hostage, clubs are going to continue to act like this for as long as they possibly can.
The only thing to do is send a message, even if it upsets the apple cart.
Football News 24/7
Absolute rubbish. Chelsea were ‘let off’ because they *didn’t* break any rules. Lens never had a proper contract with Kakuta in the first place. Get your facts straight.
Reply
If you’re against this transfer you’re against free trade and the freedom of movement. He had no contract, if you are suggesting that he shouldn’t have been able to move, you are essentially advocating slavery.
Therefore, this article is null and void, and written whilst wiping away tears that the nasty big boys haven’t been punished.
Reply
I think you should check your facts.
1 Kakuta did not have a contract, as in france up to a certain age they are not allowed
2 Chelsea did the right thing and before he was signed offered a fee
3 The French club then tried to get smart and asked for an exhorbitant amount (because it was Chelsea)
4 Chelsea told them they were being unreasonable
5 The french club then threatened chelsea
6 Fifa/Eufa jump in feet first without checking the facts just like you
Reply
1. To compare the circumstance of a promising young footballer choosing between a Europa League- light club and a Champions League club to the vicious persecution of slavery is about as ridiculous a pronunciation as Sepp ‘I have no idea what I’m doing” Blatter agreeing with Ronnie Ronseal Ronaldo that he was also a slave. Some perspective is likely needed
2. The decision may have been reached – after the two clubs agreed in private, with Chelsea agreeing to pay Lens compensation and Lens agreeing that a pre-contract wasn’t biding – with the COA ratifying it rather than ruling on any particular matter itself..(how above board and transparent that particular ‘agreement’ was I’ll let others speculate on).. but it doesn’t change the fact that Chealsea approached and dealt with Kakuta in an underhanded manner. A manner that they particularly had shown no aversion to during the infamous Ashley Cole dinner. The precident set absolves this kind of back stairs business practice completely. A practice where big clubs approach and court the payer behind the back of his employers. Whether or not Kakuta’s deal was legally sound in law doesn’t change the rather shifty behavior of Chelsea and the other big clubs in instances like this
3. I support one of the big 4 so I’m not a whinger who hates the big clubs. While all this can be deemed legal it isn’t kosha in my view and not the kind of fair and honest practice I’d like to see from those at the top who should be setting the standards for the rest to follow.
4. These are clearly just my opinions and you’re all welcome to disparage them rotten. Big love and a happy late pancake day…I hope you all tossed yourselves silly.
Reply
How charming, slag off your commenters because they don’t agree with you.
Whether the morals of the transfer were questionable is a different debate. You’ve described this as a let-off, therefore suggesting there was a fault on Chelsea’s part. There was not.
Reply
It was a light slagg off, done in a charming way (in my head at any rate)..No offence was intended Phillip. It’s all banter init…and it was a let off in my opinion, because in my belief some deterent or punishment should have been enacted. Instead the status quo was preserved, thus an opportunity to set a good course for the future lost. Legally there may have apparently been no foul play (depending on your assessment of the COAs ratification), but morally I feel there was, and still will be thereof
Reply