Soccer Association In Deep Waters

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31560, 23 December 1967, Page 15

Soccer Association In Deep Waters

(By Our Soccer Reporter) The New Zealand executive does not seem to have considered all the implications of its decision to impose transfer fees on the Canterbury soccer players, A. W. Gowans and C. F. Martin.

It has said that if an overseas club wishes to sign Gowans and Martin and any other New Zealand player considered by the association to “owe something to us,” it will demand a transfer fee; for Gowans it is $4OOO and for Martin $3OOO Both are now on trials for three months with the London professional club, Crystal Palace.

Presumably, the N.Z.F.A. vill present a bill to Crystal Palace if the club offers either or both players a professional contract and will refuse to grant clearances until the transfer fee is paid. Exactly what Crystal Palace would do with the demand is, of course, not known, although some could hazard a guess.

Even more interesting might be what transpires if Crystal Palace does not offer them contracts, and Gowans and Martin decide to stay in Britain to play for one of the strong amateur clubs. If one of these clubs is suddenly asked for a transfer fee before it can sign an amateur player, fans would hear the loudest horse-laugh in British soccer for the last 100 years.

Amateur players, as are both Gowans and Martin, cannot be bought and sold. They art free agents when they have fulfilled obligations to their clubs. Gowans and Martin have been cleared by Christchurch City and, for amateur footballers, there the matter should end. That is how it will be considered in Britain.

The N.Z.F.A. has repeatedly claimed that it is backed by a ruling of F.1.F.A., the international body, authorising transfer fees for amateur players. Earlier, it claimed that the same ruling allowed transfer fees to be levied on players moving from one New Zealand club to another. Yet not once during the many disputes over the transfer issue has the N.Z.F.A. quoted the ruling in full.

If such a ruling exists, how will the N.Z.F.A. comply with it when it is applied in reverse? For example; Gowans may bo offered a contract by Crystal Palace and the London club may agree to pay the transfer fee of $4OOO. Having completed a two-year contract Gowans may elect to return to New Zealand. In fact, under Britain’s present immigration laws his stay is limited to two years. Three courses are left open. Crrystal Palace might allow him a free transfer; it might agree to release him at the price of the original transfer fee; or it might demand a more substantial sum before giving him an official clearance to play in New Zealand. Would the N.Z.F.A. be prepared to pay $4OOO or more if such a fee were demanded? Or would Gowans, having enriched the N.Z.F.A. coffers to the tune of $4OOO, never be allowed to play soccor again? Or would his New Zealand club be expected to pay the transfer fee? And this raises another point: does the N.Z.F.A. intend to share the transfer fee it gets from an overseas club with the player’s New Zealand club. A further twist to this com-

plicated matter may not have been envisaged by the N.Z.F.A. Crystal Palace, after the three-month trial, may wish to offer Gowans a professional contract but refuse to do so because of the transfer fee demanded by the N.Z.F.A, In effect, the player would be prevented from earning the living of his choice by the action of a third party. If legal proceedings were started the N.Z.F.A. would find itself in an unenviable position.

In such an action the N.Z.F.A. could not rely solely on a F.I.F.A. ruling as its defence. It might have to prove the player had broken a contract with it by taking employment elsewhere. But the N.Z.F.A. has no contracts with its players, and apart from detailing the money it had expended on a player in the form of coaching and overseas tours, it would not have a case to present.

And the N.Z.F.A. would need to be very adroit to convince a court that Gowans has benefited to the amount of S4OOO and Martin to the extent of S3OOO.

The N.Z.F.A. has leaped into the dark, into realms of which its members are totally inexperienced. Its motives may be simply to

retain in New Zealand players of the ability of Gowans and Martin to ensure the rising standard of the game this country. The methods it has adopted, however. are legally and ethically unsound. Transfer fees have been a sore thumb to soccer whereever they have been introduced. They have been accepted, in spite of their evils, only where the game is played professionally, and associations have fought on behalf of their clubs when professional players have moved overseas without transfer fees being paid. However, by imposing fees on amateur players and claiming them for itself, the N.Z.F.A. is setting out on all innocence along a road that no other national soccer association has travelled. The N.Z.F.A. may find that its decision has disastrous consequences for itself and for New Zealand soccer. Provincial associations and clubs have the right to seek urgent clarification of the N.Z.F.A.’s action. The Canterbury association has asked for more details. Many questions must be answered before the {matters get beyond the control of provincial associations land the clubs.