Premier League / Feizal Rahman / 06 September 2009 / Leave a comment

Feizal Rahman is unimpressed by the posturing in the corridors of power

"As long as clubs have something to gain from luring the best young players at the least possible cost, they will seek to do so. And while parents continue to be mesmerised by the potential riches that await should their child make it as a professional footballer, then they will understandably sell to the highest bidder."

One has to wonder what the bureaucrats at football's governing bodies get up to when they don't have a tedious tournament draw to stage or lavish corporate hospitality to enjoy. Clearly bored of sharpening pencils and watching highlights of the 1974 Eurovision Song Contest, UEFA and FIFA have decided to go all Charles Bronson.

With first UEFA acting the tough guy, by punishing Arsenal's Eduardo for his alleged dive against Celtic in the Champions League, now FIFA have chosen to prove their own machismo by charging Chelsea with 'inducement to break a contract', regarding 18-year-old midfielder Gael Kakuta and French club, RC Lens. But is this a genuine attempt to right the perceived wrongs in world football or simply mere posturing for political gain?

Banned from signing any new players until January 2011 and ordered to pay RC Lens compensation, Chelsea (still around [2.4] to win the Premier League and [7.2] to land the Champions League in 2009/10) will no doubt feel highly aggrieved and left to ask the question, "Doesn't everyone do this, why pick on us?" That other heavyweights around Europe can be accused of 'poaching' youngsters from smaller clubs doesn't seem to be in doubt but whether Chelsea have broken a specific rule regarding contracts certainly is.

RC Lens claim Kakuta had a 'pre-contract agreement' with them before he was 16, stating his intent to sign a professional contact with them when he reached the permitted age of 18. But Chelsea's argument would rightly be, if the child cannot be deemed to be capable of signing a professional contract before 18, how can a 'pre-contract agreement' signed before then be legally binding?

As it turns out, Kakuta's mother signed the 'pre-contract' with Lens but then also penned the agreement to take the player to Chelsea. This then raises the question of a parent's right to get the best possible deal for their child. UEFA president, Michel Platini - along with other voices from FIFA - has spoken previously about big clubs involvement with luring young players as akin to child labour that borders on slavery but shouldn't any young footballer, from whichever country in the world, be given the opportunity to develop at a major club with the best possible facilities at the first available chance?

Would Argentina's Lionel Messi ([9.6] favourite to be top Champions League goalscorer 2009/10) have progressed into the world's finest talent had he not been able to join Barcelona at age 13 (and overcome his growth deficiency) or would Spaniard Cesc Fabregas, denied an opportunity in the very same Barcelona youth team as Messi, have become Arsenal captain had he not made the move to North London at 16?

Indeed, there are thousands of other prospects who don't make it but this is just a harsh socio-economic reality of the world that is beyond the powers of Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini to remedy. Just as economic migrants from every corner of the globe find the streets of London paved with litter rather than gold, so will those young Africans looking to become the next Michael Essien be more likely to end up selling tat to tourists.

In any case, what were the intentions of RC Lens with Kakuta - to mould him into a player that could lead them to Ligue 1 and Champions League contenders (Lens [340.0] to win Ligue 1 2009/10) or merely give him a long enough run in the first team to showcase his talents and then sell him on for a multi-million Euro fee? RC Lens claim that Chelsea 'stole' their player, suggesting the boy was a mere piece of meat they would trade at the right price, so who's really exploiting who here?

The European Union laws on freedom of movement and labour already sit uneasy with football's steadfastly accepted system of transfers and compensation but maybe it's time we question why we even have transfer fees and 'training compensation' paid to clubs for their development of youngsters. In how many other industries does an employer pay another remuneration for the right to offer an employee a better opportunity of employment?

The prospect of bettering yourself and your family has to be the 'inducement' in itself, so it cannot be right that a club can be said to have acted illegally in offering a superior career chance. And aside from the ethics of enticing an individual from his current employer, is there any greater morality in a club holding onto a player against his wishes?

Just as with the diving issue, UEFA and FIFA seem to be missing the key point here, that is that football is like any other business with individuals and and groups competing against each other and therefore it cannot be expected to go against the capitalist grain. As long as clubs have something to gain from luring the best young players at the least possible cost, they will seek to do so. And while parents continue to be mesmerised by the potential riches that await should their child make it as a professional footballer, then they will understandably sell to the highest bidder.

UEFA and FIFA will soon find out that just like Charles Bronson's character in Death Wish, you can kill some of the bad guys some of the time, but never all of them all of the time.

Tags: Chelsea, FIFA, Gael Kakuta, Lionel Messi, RC Lens, UEFA